Generation I by sophie marjoram

Figure 1

Generatio on

What strategies do brands need to adopt in order to interact

most efficiently with â&#x20AC;&#x153;Generation

â&#x20AC;?, once they

become the primary consumer cohort?

Sophie Marjoram N0368537 Negotiated Project Stage 1 FASH30001 8,328 words

Part 1 | Introduction

Contents Part 1 Introduction

6 .................... Introduction

Part 2 Methodology

10 .................... Methodology

Part 3 The evolution of generations Part 4 Generation I as digital beings

Generation I

16 .................... Evolving generations 18 .................... Who are generation I?

22 .................... Generation Interactive 24 .................... Generation Immersed 26 .................... Generation I (as in me) 28 .................... Generation Internet 30 .................... Generation Information 32 .................... Generation Immediate 34 .................... Generation Intuative 36 .................... Generation Influential

Part 5 Conclusion Part 6 Strategic outcomes Part 7 Referencing

Part 8 Appendix

38 .................... Conclusion

40 .................... Formulas for future retail 42 .................... Key rececommendations 52 .................... SWOT 53 .................... Act fast

56 .................... Illustrations 58 .................... References 60 .................... Bibliography

69 .................... Declaration form 70 .................... Tutorial record sheets 78 .................... Critical Path 80 .................... Project information 82 .................... Online questionnaire 84 .................... Interviews 88 .................... Focus group 89 .................... Ethnographical research 96 .................... Digital diaries 99 .................... Physical vs Digital toy tally 100 ................... Forum questions 102 ................... Ethical consent forms 112 ................... Event notes 116 ................... Visual inspiration 119 ................... Case studies

Part 1 | Introduction

Introduction

‘The question persists and indeed grows whether the computer will make it easier or harder for human beings to know who they really are, to identify their real problems, to respond more fully to beauty, to place adequate value on life, and to make their world safer than it now is.’ Norman Cousins - the poet and the computer 1966

Generation I

In 1943 when Thomas Watson, the president of IBM, said ‘I think there is a world market for maybe five computers,’ he could not have known how naive this would sound just half a century later. The intensity of the digital world we live in today would have been incomprehensible to Watson, a world where humans and computers are increasingly becoming one. This growing partnership between humans and digital technology was established in the 1950s, when the computer made the digital revolution accessible to the public (Chatfield 2012: 12). However only now are we entering an age where we can legitimately fathom what the digital revolution is. A prominent aspect of it, is the graphically rich world wide web. With over two billion people connected to the internet (Chatfield 2012: 28), it is hard to think that this is only one component in a rapidly expanding digital media infrastructure. Its rapid emergence and growth are symbolic of the powerful role that new technologies are playing in transforming not only our media system but also our entire societies (Montgomery 2002: 190).

2 ure Fig

In 1999, a survey was conducted by The Kaiser Family Foundation (2010: online), exploring how present media was within young societies. They questioned over two thousand americans aged between 8-18 years old and found that they were engrossed in media for around six hours and twenty minutes per day. The report noted that their lives were close to â&#x20AC;&#x153;saturation,â&#x20AC;? that it was nearing impossible for them to consume any more media. It seemed as though a merciless plateau was being reached, whereby no more media consumption could physically take place within a day. This observation was supported in their latter 2004 report, conducted on the same age group. The findings of this report showed that media consumption had only increased by two minutes per day. However in 2009 when the survey was conducted again, media consumption had risen by twenty percent to seven hours and forty minutes and if the use of multiple devices was included, the figure rose to an astonishing ten hours and forty-five minutes per day. This was due to the sudden acceleration of the digital age. Media was no longer just being consumed through a Magazine or on the Television, personal devices had given rise to a more intense absorption of media. One can only wonder what that figure may be now in 2014, but it is fair to say younger generations in the developed world barely have a moment in their waking hours when they arenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t seamlessly connected to the digital realms.

Part 1 | Introduction

The Digital Servitude has begun. Huxley’s nightmare, set out in Brave New World, his great dystopian novel, was that we would be undone by the things that delight us. Let us spare a thought for the writer who perceived the future in which we would come to love our digital servitude (Naughton 2013: online).

As Chatfield (2012: 30) states in his book How to Thrive in the Digital Age, Behavioural norms are being disrupted at a pace even the rise of radio broadcasting in the 1920s and television in the 1950s did not match. And the most important development of all, for me, is how this change relates to a different kind of norm: not just our habits but what we consider to be our default “waking state.”

Figure 3

This report will seek to understand this “waking state” within the digital generation and address how “smart” consumers of the future will need to be treated. Constant shifts in how they interact with brands will result in changes to the way our retail landscape looks. The upsurge in m-commerce and multi-channel retailing is an example of this already starting to happen. Mintel stated that ‘m-commerce grew by up to 60% in 2013, to a total of £4.5 billion’ (Mintel 2013: online) and that ‘the online sales of clothing grew by 18.4% to £6.1 billion in 2013’ (Mintel 2013: online). From these figures it is clear to see that ‘the upsurge in the digital age is promoting a rethink of the role of bricks & mortar stores’ (Stylus 2012: online). Figure 4

Generation I

60%

18.4%

Figure 6

Figure 5

In a changing world where unborn babies have a social media feed (Smolan et al 2012: 6) what will they grow up to become and what strategies will brands need to adopt to keep these tech savvy individuals engaged? This report will briefly identify the role of generations in our consumerist society; outline who “Generation I” are and explain why it is relevant to talk about them. It will then go on to analyse the eight facets that make “Generation I.” Information and ideas derived from this section will then be expanded on in the second part of the report and a set of recommendations will be suggested for how brands should respond to “Generation I.” Because the term ‘Brand’ encompasses infinite elements, it is impossible to provide a definitive set of recommendations. Therefore the report will focus on the in-store environments and experiences that brands endeavour to provide their consumers with.

Part 2 |Methodology

Methodology

The research for this report was aimed at answering the question of ‘What strategies do brands need to adopt in order to interact most efficiently with “Generation I,” once they become the primary consumer cohort?’ This involved identifying key research questions such as ‘Who are “Generation I”?’, ‘How are they different to previous consumers?’ and ‘What is needed to engage them?’ Primary and Secondary research was undertaken to explore in more detail personal pre-conceptions of “Generation I.” Research was also conducted in order to validate the heavily documented media topic surrounding children and technology consumption - as this was mostly commentated on in a negative way, so unbiased research was needed with which reliable recommendations could be formed. Primary research was an important part of this project, and this enabled me to make valid insights for brands on the new generation of consumers they will be having to engage with. Through a varied and extensive range of qualitative and quantitate research methods reliable data has been collected and expanded upon to produce timely findings.

Figure 7

Figure 10

Figure 8

Figure 9

Figure 11

Generation I

Primary Research 21/09/2013 - 21/10/2013. In order to gain an overview into the interactive aspects of children in the current day, an online questionnaire (see appendix: 5) was created via surveymonkey.com and specifically sent out to parents with children under 11 years old. The survey was kept simple and to the point with questions such as ‘How long do your children (per child) spend on technology items per day?’, ‘What digital items do they interact with?’, ‘Have you found in any cases that this consumption has changed your child’s/children’s behavior? eg. enabled them to learn certain skills/ created short attention span etc’ and ‘Which of these phrases best describes your child’s/ children’s relationship with technology?’ A total of 30 respondents replied to this, making it a useful task to carry out. Some insightful data was collected on the length of time under 11’s spend in the digital realms and also any changes parents have noticed that this has on their children. This has helped to establish what kinds of traits this digital generation have. It could be argued that these surveys, in some cases, weren’t very reliable, as mothers were embarrassed to tell the truth about how exposed to technology their children are, so this reiterates the need for observational research.

Focus Group 07/12/13. A focus group (see appendix: 8) was conducted with 4 participants under the age of 11, all chosen for their confident personalities in order to gain enthusiastic insight. This was conducted in the dining room of my house and a series of questions were put to the children and then discussion sparked from these starting points. However on reflection this was an unsuccessful form of research as it was hard to keep the members motivated and concentrating on the subject in hand when they were all together. Although I did collect a few insights into the interaction they have with technology and the vast knowledge they hold, it did make me realise ethnographical research was needed to gain a better understanding of what makes ‘Generation I.” If I was to improve this research, I think it would of worked better doing it in a school environment where the children would have been more focused and less excited.

29/10/13- 19/12/13. The next step of my research involved interviews with industry professionals (see appendix: 6). Those contacted were chosen based on their specific expertise, relating to certain areas within my research topic. 14/11/13 - 9/12/13. Interviews with a blogger (see appendix: 7) was also carried out to ascertain what “Generation I” at the top end of the digital spectrum were like. Bloggers were chosen specifically for their blogs on their “digital children” and their in-depth commentary on the way their children were being shaped and morphed by technology. All respondents chose to be interviewed via email, which probably makes them feel more comfortable and gives them the opportunity to think over indepth answers. A limiting factor about contacting via email is that the questions are very much set in stone and there is no way to shape or change the direction of the conversation. However to overcome this I ensured I emailed back with any follow up questions to statements they had made and further conversation was initiated through that. Without any personal connections to the respondents, I found that they were very enthusiastic about my topic and were eager to help in any way they could. This meant thorough and detailed answers were provided. Each interview had a set of different questions relating specifically to the person I was interviewing, this gave me a wider breadth of expert knowledge. This process was very illuminating and provoked a lot of thoughts regarding the direction of my report and ideas for the strategic outcome.

Part 2 |Methodology

Primary Research 11/12/13, 13/12/13, 14/12/13. Following on from the inconclusive focus group, studying under 11s, ethnographical interviews (see appendix: 9) were conducted to collect first-hand qualitative testimony and retail focused behavioural observations. Studying participants in their everyday environments, meant that their generational traits could be assessed rationally, where they felt at most ease. This involved artefact acquisition and analysis of technology products found in the children’s bedrooms/ belongings. Photo and video documentation of how they were interacting with their devices were carried out. I also asked the participants to do some narration as they performed the process of interacting with their devices, I asked them to describe out loud what they were thinking. Questions throughout the interviews were asked regarding technology. Overall this form of research was very successful and has aided me to feel better informed on “Generation I” and able to give strong insights to brands. The reliability of the research, however, could be seen as not completely accurate. When asking one of the children her views on technology she seemed to be quoting back something she had heard her mother say and therefore not exposing her true feelings towards technology. Another point was that children are children and when asking a few questions they would go off on a tangent and discuss an unrelated matter. If I was to improve this research I would extend it to a wider cross-section of children, some of which not so as confident as they may have more varied and valid insights. The previous participants were also asked to fill in “Digital Diaries” (see appendix: 10) for a week, noting down any interactions they had with their digital devices or technology at school. This was a good form of research to carry out as it enabled me to understand how “Generation I” think and what mindset they have surrounding technology. Obviously it is very childlike data but can be used effectively as research in my report to illuminate how to successfully engage with these consumers.

Generation I

15/12/13. A question was placed on “Mumsnet. com” and “Quib.ly”(see appendix: 12), both online platforms for parental advice and discussion. I felt it was appropriate to open up discussion in this way with a broad range of parents on my research topic as this is a good way of getting an honest insight. The research helped me to understand that all children (and families) are different and not to make too much of a generalisation with my research document.

All primary research was conducted ethically according to Nottingham Trent University’s ethical code. Detailed explanations about the research project and what it entailed were provided to all participants before asking them for permission to quote emails or face- to-face contact. They were asked to sign consent forms. All children’s parents were asked to sign on behalf of their children. All consent forms are included in the appendix (see appendix: 13).

Figure 12

Figu

re 1 3

Secondary Research Due to the topicality of my report, with regards to children’s technology consumption, there has been a lot of media coverage on the subject recently; resulting in a diverse and thorough range of secondary sources. Newspapers such as The Guardian were a good source for gathering statistics on the topic and offering knowledgable comments from professionals in each area. However the problem I found with these sources was that the majority of the stories were negative, probably because this is what sells newspapers. That is why gaining primary research on top of this was vital. A relevant TV show - ‘Too Young for Technology’ on ITV highlighted interesting statistics and first hand insights into how absorbed younger generations, are in technology. A key piece of primary research was conducted on the show which enabled me to successively underpin my research.

I also attended a number of Events - Digital Shoreditch conference, Online vs Offline conference and Future Laboratory:Strange Days trend briefing. Vital industry speakers gave penetrating viewpoints on the way they see the digital future going. (See Appendix: 14)

I found that opinion makers on Blogs such as ‘BabiTech’ were essential to my understanding of “Generation I”, as they are written by mothers gaining first hand insight from their digital children. The Guardian also featured a Live Blog on #digital kids, whereby anyone with anything to say on this topic could post in - this broadened my viewpoints children and technology and enabled me to consider areas of my research document that I hadn’t previously thought about thus developing the reports’ focus.

Trend reports & forecasting agencies: WGSN, Stylus, Mintel, Nexis, The Kaiser Family Foundation; were all used to source industry statistics and market research report figures. They also helped to determine initial trends, from which the basis of this report were formed. All information gained from these sources have enabled a thorough understanding of the market and as the sources are based on fact and measurable insight the information gained is very reliable.

Magazines and online reports such as Fast Company were looked at to gain inspiration for the layout and visual aspects of the report (See Appendix: 15 ).

Visual inspiration was collected from many sources and pinned to pinterest boards. This helped create a document with the same visual commentary throughout, mimicking that of a technology magazine (See Appendix: 15 ).

Books - A variety of books aided my research into “Generation I”, previous generations, the digital age and market analysis. They provided professional insight into each area of the research document and a reliable underpinning to arguments and points being made. (See Bibliography: 60)

Part 3 |The evolution of generations

Generation I

Figure 14

The evolution of generations

Part 3 |The evolution of generations

Evolving Generations

Figure 15

‘Each generation imagines itself to be more intelligent than the one that went before it, and wiser than the one that comes after it.’ George Orwell

‘A generation... is the aggregate of all people born over roughly the span of a phase of life who share a common location in history and, hence, a common collective persona’ (Strauss et al. 1997:16). As Howe and Strauss comment; it is the time, place and attitudes that someone is exposed to whilst developing that shapes and determines who they will be. The retail industry, has always had a great understanding of this generational differentiation; for the reason being that ‘collective generational thinking can drive consumer... behaviour’(McCrindle 2009:119). Understanding the changing habits and behaviours of a new generation is more important than capitalising on the new technology or media of the time. If generational traits are not fully recognised, successfully appealing to ever-changing consumers is impossible.

Generation I

The timeline below shows the evolution of generations within the developed world and how specific events in history and developments in technology, have formed their personalities making them a completely different generation from the one that came previous to it.

End of WW2 Born post-World War II meant they were more optimistic, idealistic and financially stable.

First colour TV broadcast Increased prosperity led to growing consumerism. Several important social changes - Women’s movement, Civil Rights movement etc. Saw the rise of cable TV and video games. Characterised as individualists and beings skeptical of authority. Born into a world entering a time of economic uncertainty.

Personal computing

Also known as the Millennial Generation. Increasing inter-regional and inter-community conflicts.

Desktop internet computing Characterised as optimistic, techcomfortable and brand loyal.

Hotmail launched

Mobile internet computing

Tech-savvy

Myspace launched ‘There is an ancient saying that bears much truth: People resemble their times more than they resemble their parents’ (McCrindle 2009: 4) which is justified throughout the timeline. Reflecting upon the intensity of the digital age we are currently experiencing, and the ever increasing speed of technological advancement; Generation Z is too broad a demographic to resemble this tipping point in modern day culture and that is why this report highlights a new demographic, “Generation I.”

Globally connected

Facebook launched First iPhone

Born into a world facing terrorism and environmental concerns, which has led to a wary generation

iPhone 5

Technology is air

Growing up with diverse cultures being the norm Immersed in 3D interactive worlds

Figure 16

Part 3 |The evolution of generations

Who are “Generation I”?

‘Information is power and we are the information generation.’ Morgan Kennedy

“Generation I” are technological natives (McCrindle 2009: 52) who have grown up fully immersed in the digital world. They are not defined by a specific point in time or age group but defined by their digital presence. Startling figures such as ‘17% of under 3s now own their own laptop or tablet’(Smith 2013: online) and ‘use of a tablet at home has tripled among 5-15s since 2012 now being at 42%’(Ofcom 2013: online) are breeding a generation of digital tastemakers. Even before they were born they most likely had a virtual identity, with ‘23% of parents publishing sonograms online’ (JWT 2012: 3). This generation has digital in their DNA. They have no concept of a time without high-speed wifi or sophisticated electronic devices. They are always connected; communicating through various social networking channels that span continents and cultures which previous generations couldn’t have even imagined having access to. This connectivity is unprecedented in human history; Will Palley, a trends strategist at US based ad agency JWT, told Stylus (2013: online) that ‘there is no longer a process of logging on or off ’; online and offline worlds can no longer be regarded as two separate realms, ubiquity is the answer for this generation. This has already started to be exploited by technology brands such as Google - producing Google Glass for a seamless online and offline experience, but why aren’t retailers? Figure 17

Generation I

There is much debate whether Generation I is a passing fad or whether we have in fact reached a watershed moment in society. As McCrindle (2009: viii) comments ‘One of the issues with generational theory is that it is extraordinarily popular within the media’ due to the money that can be made from creating a new consumer and catering to it. This suggests that a lot of the current discussion around digitalised children could be hype. However Herring (2008: 72) has an opposing view and states that although the birth of a true Internet Generation lies years ahead in the future, we are currently in the transitional phase where technology is beginning to affect social change. Kathryn Mills, professor of developmental cognitive neuroscience, commented that (see appendix: 6.1) this change is just an extension of what has happened to previous generations and ‘it is just like how any widespread technology changes how one grows up. Books, telephones -- these are also technologies that impacted on the development of previous generations,’ however this latest technology development is a lot more interactive. The generational timeline (figure 16) also backs up Mills’ comment and shows “Generation I” forming through a natural progression in technologies and societies, leading to the conclusion that it is fair to say that this digerati is real.

Generation I have been labeled ‘the most complex yet most critical shopper of all time’ (Fitch 2013: 1), even before they have come of age. Fitch states that this is due to the wealth of choice and the freedom that is now given at such a young age through things such as the “app store”. It is important for brands to acknowledge this generation as they are our nascent consumer and the needs and behaviours of this group will inform not only the next generation of shoppers, but the future of mainstream retail. How do retailers and brand owners engage with a new kind of shopper, who is digital from day one? ‘They think in hyperlinks, they multi-task, they value speed over accuracy and they absorb information from multiple sources. This way of thinking is little suited to traditional communication methodologies’ (McCrindle 2009: 116). As McCrindle states retailers must acknowledge this new generation and change their engagement points accordingly. Tokoyo’s Sample Central store has reacted to this by creating a “Showrooming” shop. The store addresses consumers willingness to visit, with little intention of purchasing and exhibits brands to try on but not to buy (CuddefordJones 2013: online). Brands must start following this example and create stores that are specifically devised around generational traits. “Generation I” are the future and their needs and behaviour have the potential to revolutionise retail. The next part of this report will analyse the traits of “Generation I.” It will explore what makes them a diverse group of dynamic digital beings; and thus aid brands in creating more seamless strategies of brand to consumer interaction within the retail environment.

Fundamentally the old rules of retail no longer apply.

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Internet

Generation I Generation (as in me)

Generation Immersed

Generation Interactive

Generation I

Generation

Generation Information

Generation Immediate

Generation Intuitive

Generation Influential

Figure 18

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Interactive

Figure 19

“GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION INTERACTIVE. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP ENGAGING IN A TWO WAY CONVERSATION WITH THE DIGITAL WORLD. A GENERATION WHO ARE CAPTIVATED BY HI VIS SCREENS THAT FLAWLESSLY RESPOND TO THEIR EVERY MOVEMENT.

‘With their engaging, interactive properties, the new digital media are likely to have a more profound impact on how children grow and learn, what they value, and ultimately who they become than any medium that has come before’ (Montgomery 2002 :189). “Generation I” have been raised during a time where the printed word comes in electronic form and images are no longer static, they move. In this digital era, communication is no longer restricted to the spoken word, it is multi-modal (McCrindle 2009: 100) and as Berriman states (see appendix: 6.2) ‘in terms of social skills there are new forms of etiquette.’ The new forms of etiquette Berriman touches on are no longer forms of literacy but interactivity. Interactive media is now the prominent means by which these digital tastemakers consume messages (McCrindle 2009: 179).

Generation I

Gesture based technology is at the height of what drives this interactive relationship. It is now common for young children to swipe a laptop screen with their finger only to be left perplexed when the screen doesn’t respond to them in a way that a tablet would (see appendix: 16.1). Screens were a thing once only watched, however now they provide an interface between a child and machine. A survey conducted with the parents of “Generation I” (see appendix: 5) highlighted that interactive stimulating devices such as iPads and hand-held game consoles are favoured by “Generation I” in contrast to passive devices such as the TV. 100% of participants surveyed claimed that their children interacted with an iPad. Growing up with interactive screens has been pivotal in “Generation I’s” development and indicates to future retail stores that touch and access points are key. Clinical non-interactive displays will be off putting for this gesture based generation.

interactive /inter’ aktiv/

adjective adjective: interactive 1. (of two people or things) influencing each other. 2. allowing a two-way flow of information between a computer and a computeruser; responding to a user’s input.

Generation I participate in effortless interaction between both the digital and physical worlds, which is illustrated in the game “Skylanders.” When studying Generation I (see appendix: 9), Skylanders kept reoccurring as a popular game. The game involves placing a physical toy on a portal which is connected to a television. This then turns the toy into a digital character on the screen. From here the children could use this toy to play digital games whilst making adaptations to its physical characteristics. Another illustration of digital and physical worlds uniting is the Augmented Reality pop up on Nintendo 3DS. This device has a front camera which captures the space in front of you eg. a table, and can make it look as though an action figure is breaking through your table. As “Generation I” are continually exposed to this seamless relationship between digital and physical realms, a similarly seamless retail experience will be expected. It will no longer be acceptable to regard digital and physical as two separate things.

As Montgomery (2002: 190) states, ‘the interactive features of these digital [worlds] hold great promise for empowering children by offering them new tools for self- expression, communication, and education.’ As a result of this, today’s youth have a unique outlook on the way they interact with their lives. As the owner of “Four Little Testers,” an app testing company which uses children as testers, commented ‘many of the apps [my children interact with] require role play and imagination...and I have found that this has made the children a lot more creatively minded, and maybe a bit more hard to please? Because they are interacting in these highly whimsical worlds nothing mundane is exciting to them’(see appendix: 7.1). Battle suggests that as digital worlds are so interactive, the physical world does not seem appealing to “Generation I.” For retail environments to uphold any sort of relationship with “Generation I,” it is important that they not only sell but tell the story of their products and excite consumers through interactive and immersive worlds. ‘What we see driving this consumer, whats different to before is the focus of the intuitive, the requirement for things to be seamless, to be engaged, to be relationship driven and the need for things to actually interact with such as the touchscreen’ (LS:N Global 2013).

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Immersed “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION IMMERSED. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP ENGROSSED IN VIRTUAL WORLDS OF THEIR OWN CREATION. A GENERATION WHO IS LOGGED INTO NUMEROUS PLATFORMS THAT SPAN A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT DEVICES. A GENERATION WHO IS FULLY IMMERSED WITHIN THE DIGITAL DOMAIN. 8 yr olds,

SPEND ON AVERAGE

Generation I

1:55

PER DAY IN FRONT OF SCREENS

(Davidson 2013: online)

Figure 20

With an average of ‘6 screens in every UK household’ (Too young for technology: 2013) its a story of absorption that can’t be avoided, which leaves “Generation I” with ‘a state of partial attention’ (Fitch 2013:1), a product of their multi-screen, multi-device lifestyle. One respondent from the “Parent’s take on their children’s technology consumption” survey (see appendix: 5) stated that her children ‘have a much shorter attention spans because they are working so many gadgets’ and when conducting studies with “Generation I” it was noted (see appendix: 9) that it was very hard to gain comprehensive answers and conversations with the children as they would soon become too involved in what games or device they were explaining. Ella, aged 10 (see appendix: 9.1), who whilst analysing her kindle exclaimed ‘did you know you can actually fly? There’s this epic video on YouTube of someone flying and he’s got these massive amazing wings and I want to do it because I know its real because I’ve seen someone do it on YouTube!’ The BBC’s show “Too Young for Technology”(2013) aired a young boy quoting ‘I have a cousin who’s one and a half and she’s using the tablet. She is watching her little kid TV shows or playing her games...and then when she’s playing on it and you try call her or pick her up or something she starts crying immediately so you give her it back and she’ll be quiet again.’ These examples perfectly demonstrate how much of “Generation I’s” attention is consumed by technology. This implies that for retailers it will be important to have a store that can grab “Generation I’s” attention, rivalling their vast digital realms. Retailers should react to this generational trait by installing multi devices at certain touch-points throughout the store, grabbing the consumers’ short lived bursts of attention and coherently combining the store with their cloudbased world of friends data and entertainment.

As a form of research, “Digital diaries” (see appendix:10 ) were collected from three members of the “Generation I” cohort. Information collated from the diaries shows that the participants immerse themselves in an average

15hours 30 minutes

of of game play over a seven day period. 40% of respondents from the ‘Parent’s take on their children’s technology consumption’ survey (see appendix: 5) believe their under 11’s spend 3-4 hours per day connecting with the digital domains. These high figures demonstrate the extent to which the digital domain has penetrated “Generation I’s” environment and when thinking about what this means for future retail environments it can be seen there are many transferrable values. “Generation I” orientate most effectively by colour and contrast (as they do within the games/ online) so this should play a key role in store layout. The store must have music to “Generation I” this signifies being open and on, and like within gaming societies, a shop must have rewards and incentives to keep the consumer coming back. A quote from one of the “Generation I” participants talking about Minecraft stated ‘You can do whatever you want so sometimes when I feel a bit imaginative or have a good idea, I come on this and it lets me do what ever I want and create something that I can’t do in the real world’ (see appendix: 9.1). It can be predicted that this generation will also desire involvement in the entire chain of activities that brings a product to market - from conception, creation and even marketing; because this is the creative power they have been given within their games.

Figure 21

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation I(as in me) “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION ME. A GENERATION THE WORLD HAS SEEN “SELFIES” OF BEFORE THEY ARE EVEN BORN.

Figure 22

Generation I

In 2013 the Oxford Dictionary named “Selfie” as the word of the year (BBC news 2013: online) commenting that ‘the word has evolved from a niche social media tag into a mainstream term for a self-portrait photograph.’ This new obsession with the self is something that “Generation I” are fluent in. Before they are even born, some members of this demographic have a social media feed. Smolan quotes that ‘In 2012 the average digital birth of [a child] occurs at approximately six months, with a third of all children’s photos and information posted online within weeks of their birth’ (Smolan et al 2012: 6). This fixation with the self is furthered once born, with toys now featuring cameras and webcams. These features create a generation transfixed by their own image. One survey respondent (see appendix: 5) reported that her 26 month year old child uses a game on Cbeebies that features seeing herself mirrored on screen. The digital world is nurturing a selfobsessed generation. Future retailers need to act upon this and create stores which serve as hubs for “sharing things” to a consumers own personal social media feed. They should fuel the “Seflie” culture by enabling people to promote themselves within the store. Highly personalised content will also appeal to this narcissistic generation.

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Figure 23

Generation Internet “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION INTERNET. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP LIVING IN ‘THE CLOUD”. A GENERATION WHO REGARD THEIR ONLINE LIVES TO BE JUST AS REAL AS THEIR OFFLINE ONES. IN FACT, THEY DON’T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE TWO.

Figure 24

As Stylus commented (2013: online) ‘although older generations may consider socialising on Facebook to be a completely different, even inferior, form of interaction to socialising face to face, the new teens don’t compartmentalise these two realms.’ The boundaries between online and offline interaction are becoming increasingly blurred. One parent, when asked ‘Have you found that technology has changed your child’s behaviour in any way?’, quoted that ‘[technology has] helped them develop... a means of socialising through Skype and Facetime whilst gaming’ (see appendix: 5).

Generation I

There are mixed views regarding these high levels of digital interaction and whether it should be seen as a valid form of interaction, Schmidt and Cohen round this up perfectly ‘globalisations critics will decry this erosion of local monopolies, but it should be embraced, because this is how our societies will move forward’ (Schmidt et al 2013 : 19). If brands want to uphold any form of physical communication with “Generation I” they will have to endeavour to do so through an innovative manner which mimics online interaction.

Internet addiction is now a recognised disorder and although only ‘4% of young people have it’ (Mills 2013: see appendix 6.1) it evidently shows the huge role the Internet plays in todays youth. The boundaries between online and offline life are becoming increasingly obscured due to the rise in hand held devices. Studies of four participants under eleven years old (see appendix: 9), highlighted that on average each participant owned four portable devices. These devices allow “Generation I” access to the web at all hours of the day. One participant commented ‘If I can’t sleep sometimes I go on my PS Vita and look at youtube tutorials of how to do cool stuff ’(see appendix: 9.3). This is something retailers need to acknowledge. Generation I will expect to have store access 24 hours of the day both online and offline. Kate Spade is a retailer that has already started doing this by introducing a 24 hour window shop, whereby customers can purchase from the shop’s window and have the item delivered to them within one hour (See appendix: 16.2).

A further byproduct of the web is the gradual disappearance of physical items. Platforms such as music and photographs are decreasingly found in physical form and mostly stored digitally on iPods or Laptops. Front rooms, in the home were covered with Barbies and Action Men, now they are mostly virtually stored in devices and in the cloud (see appendix: 11). This is visualised in the “Digital vs Physical Toy Tally” below, which shows data collated from 3 UK households. It could be suggested that growing up with the cloud and having images, music and now possessions digitally hoarded, “Generation I” will be consumers less concerned with physically owning possessions and more obsessed with having access when they need it.

PHYSICAL TOY VS DIGITAL TOY

(See appendix: 11)

Figure 25

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Information “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION INFORMATION. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP WITH A VAST INSIGHT AND SAVVY-NESS ON WORLDLY TOPICS. A GENERATION WHO CAN “GOOGLE” AN ANSWER TO ANY QUESTION.

Growing up with instant access to a wealth of information at the swipe of a screen, is creating a generation with a high exposure to events and ideas gathered from all corners of the planet. Ethnographical studies undertaken on “Generation I” highlighted that a child as young as 8 was looking at the “Right Move” website because they were ‘probably going to get a dog next year and we need a house to have a dog’(see appendix: 9.1). At the 2012 Sandbox Summit Alison Arling, in her talk on digital kids, commented on a video she had watched called “The world according to a 10 year old.” She proceeded to tell the audience how shocked she was at how this child ‘didn’t know the sound of a dial-up but yet if you asked them what 9/11 or global warming was they would have a wealth of knowledge’ (Sandbox Summit: 2012). As Arling suggests, things in the past may not seem so important to “Generation I,” yet whats going on in the world around them at the current time, are.

Generation I

This vigilant characteristic combined with the partial state attention previously discussed, creates a nascent kind of consumer, one who pays less attention yet has a sharper, more informed eye (Fitch 2013: 1). It will be important to address this consumer with pull, instead of push, marketing because with the depth of knowledge they have access to, transparency (or lack of it) will be something they notice in a brand. Being privy to everything from such a young age, including marketing campaigns, means that “Generation I” have created a filter towards the over saturated advertising market. Sinha and Foscht state ‘The idea of reverse psychology works well on them since they are intrigued, even enthralled, by any “unexpected” tactics from firms, whom they generally take to be self serving and profit-orientated’ (Sinha et al 2007: 85). Professor Mills commented upon “Generation I” being more realistic with their buying habits, saying ‘I think widespread access to information will make the younger generations more informed on their consuming choices’ (see appendix: 6.1). It will be vital for retail to offer them the best sale whether that be in value or experience.

Through various social networking sites and gaming forums, “Generation I” have a large access to peer information. According to a global survey conducted by Milward Brown, ‘50% of all 8-12 year olds globally are online everyday and 25% interact with peers in other countries’ (Grail Research 2011: 8), this community is valued by “Generation I.” The ability it offers to cascade messages instantly, helps to inform their everyday decisions. Studies of “Generation I” carried out, reiterated this point. Daniel, aged 11, posted pictures of his new gaming items online and was observed waiting for comments and feedback on whether the item could be swapped with fellow gamers or whether he had to keep it himself (see appendix: 9.3). This indicates that “Generation I” will identify potential purchases via their natural state of peer suggestion and information. Retailers must take this into account and consider setting up things such as peer reward schemes or offering peer opinion digitally close at hand. If this Generation wasn’t so exposed to social networking technologies such as Facebook, Myspace and SMS they wouldn’t be as peer connected and peer group influenced. Put simply, generations are a product of the events, leaders, developments and trends of the times (McCrindle 2009: 52).

8-12 YEAR OLDS GLOBALLY.. Fi

re 2

(Grail Research 2011: 8)

Figure 27

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Immediate “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION IMMEDIATE. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP PLUGGED INTO A BOUNDARY-LESS WORLD WHERE EVERYTHING CAN BE DONE AT THE CLICK OF A BUTTON. A GENERATION WHO ARE QUICK AT SWITCHING TASKS, QUICK TO FIND WHAT THEY’RE LOOKING FOR AND QUICK AT PICKING UP AND LEARNING NEW THINGS. “Generation I” are quick to want change. The latest model of their digital device is of paramount importance to them. Observations of “Generation I” exposed their need for the new. One participant, Jacob, aged 7, had Xbox 360 4 on his christmas list even though he already owned an Xbox (see appendix: 9.1). Archie, aged 9, was intrigued by the latest phone models and continually spoke about how his dad’s phone ‘isn’t the latest model’ and he ‘needs an upgrade’ (see appendix: 9.2). It can be seen that “Generation I” has grown up with upgrades and they don’t trust products that aren’t constantly changing. They expect constant innovation and the always evolving product is what will impress them. Retailers can take this into account when considering their product range and in-store environments. An ever-changing and updating store will keep these fastpaced consumers interested and keep them coming back out of wonder. An add on touch could be giving “Generation I” an input into how the store evolves making them feel part of the process. Figure 28

Generation I

it isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t the latest model

Figure 29

he needs an upgrade

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Intuitive “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR GENERATION INTUITIVE. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP WITH A NATURAL TALENT OF PERCEPTIVENESS. A GENERATION WHO NO LONGER NEED AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL TO WORK THINGS OUT.

Figure 30

Generation I

“Generation I” are evolving as ‘highly intuitive and confident unaided users of digital technology’ (Prensky 2001: 106). Navigating a wealth of information that they have instant access too, has fuelled their entrepreneurial spirit and left them with a “just do it” attitude (Stylus, 2013: online). Tapscott (2008: 99) suggests: Instead of just numbly receiving information, they are gathering it from around the globe with lightning speed. Instead of just trusting a TV announcer to tell us the truth, they are assessing and scrutinising the jumble of facts that are often contradictory or ambiguous.

Here Tapscott comments on how he believes an interactive digital environment has bred a generation of smart citizens. However many would disagree with him, such as literacy expert Sue Palmer (Mail Online 2013: online) who states that:

What children really need up to the age of seven is real life in real space and real time, which means three-dimensional experiences. There is a real fear that too much engagement with this quick-fix technology is making it more difficult for some children to learn how to read and write.

However primary research undertaken on Mumsnet (see appendix: 12.1) revealed that technology, such as the iPad, has helped a nine year old autistic child to develop instincts and academic skills. Considering the reliability of this first hand evidence, it can be seen that technology is aiding the younger generation’s ability to act instinctively and utilise their devices in adaptive ways according to what they are doing. Retailers must recognise this when considering “Generation I’s” purchasing habits. They are a generation which will make well informed decisions yet it will be done intuitively, so it will be important for retailers to tap in to customers’ devices in-store, to get them to make a purchase that they think they have executed themselves.

(Thieke 2013: online)

Figure 31

Considering in 2013 ‘38% of children under 2 used a mobile device for media – compared to 10% two years ago’ (Thieke 2013: online) it can be seen that the rate in which children adopt technology is getting younger and intuitive behaviour is developing alongside this. In a survey conducted with parents of “Generation I” (see appendix: 5), participants were asked ‘If your child/children do use technology have you found that it has changed their behaviour in anyway?’ One respondent replied ‘[technology] helped them to be more independent and work things out for themselves, at a much quicker rate than I did’ and another suggested her child was ‘very skilled at using all our gadgets and have learnt it at a scary pace’. This highlights “Generations I’s” instinctive abilities which was also highlighted when ethnographically studying a group of four under 11’s. The participant’s abilities to work around problems in games such as Minecraft (see appendix 9.2) was dynamic. This behaviour will create a proactive shopper who is no longer a ‘passive consumer of the broadcast model’ (Tapscott 2008:186), they will want to think out loud and have their own say when it comes to the environment they are shopping in. Signage and instructions within a store will no longer be relevant to “Generation I”, just as they aren’t relevant in their gaming worlds (see appendix: 9).

Part 4 | Generation I as Digital Beings

Generation Influential “GENERATION I” STANDS FOR A GENERATION OF INFLUENCERS. A GENERATION WHO ARE GROWING UP AS TASTEMAKERS CONSTRUCTED BY THE DIGITAL AGE. A GENERATION OF AUTHORITATIVE BEINGS.

Children of the new generation have been named as “Parental Influentials”, owing to the leverage they hold over their parents. ‘According to McNeal, children aged four to twelve directly influenced $300 billion of adult purchasing in 2002 and “evoked” another $300 billion’ (Schor 2004: 14). This shows that this well informed generation are often consulted by their parents for their savvy insights on new products. Arling (360 kid 2012: online) also reported that there is a trend being seen in ‘hand-me-ups - the mum and dad get the old model iPad and the child the new one.’ Already having a strong influence over peoples lives at such a young age, “Generation I” will desire for this to continue, and more, as they become the dominant consumer cohort. Retailers will have adapt accordingly and start involving “Generation I” within all processes of the retail experience.

Generation I

$BILLION

4-12 YEAR OLDS Figure 32

(Schor 2004: 14)

OF ADULT PURCHASING IN 2002, WAS INFLUENCED BY

Liam Berriman (see appendix: 6.2) states that ‘the growth of the virtual world market has been significant in changing how young people are positioned as “consumers” within out society’ and that nowadays ‘designers and companies attempt to incorporate users into the design process’. ‘Designers can now talk to, observe and interact with their users and see what they’re doing, which might lead to a new design idea’ and in this way ‘young people are increasingly being positioned as important not only at the point of use or consumption, but also in the process of design and production.’ Berriman determines that “Generation I” have an increased responsibility as consumers gained through technology processes. Having read this claim, further research was undertaken with a company called “Four Little Testers” (see appendix: 7.1). The idea behind “Four Little Testers” is that app developers contact the Battle family to test out their new apps and the children test them with the father writing up their reviews. Placing this young generation at the fore front of app design and critique, shows not only how valued the younger generations opinions are but how they are dominant consumers already. This again links back to the previous point, “Generation I” have been given the opportunity to have a say in designing and developing which are traits that will stay with them throughout life. Brands will need to offer a creative collaborative element to their stores, which “Generation I” can not only buy into but help create.

Andy Battle, the owner of “Four Little Testers” (see appendix: 7.1) also comments that ‘the testing certainly helps [the children] to articulate things better and form an opinion’. With “Generation I” being given so much rule with their ideas and conclusions it indicates that when growing up this generation will have a unique confidence in voicing themselves, retailers must be well positioned to cater for these confident consumers.

Part 5 | Conclusion

Conclusion As the fight for consumer loyalty is fiercer than ever it is important for brands to understand, not merely who their consumers are but also where they are, how they spend their time and with whom (Stylus, 2012: online). Highlighting “Generation I” and their differential traits within this report, has enabled a deeper understanding of how brands must respond in order to engage consumers with higher “techpectations.” Retailers must rethink the role of the typical “store” in order to sync with this nascent consumer. This issue was explored throughout the document and the findings show that the most effective ways to interact and cater for “Generation I” through a retail environment, is to provide an orchestrated experience where digital and physical, and online and offline, work in harmony to match the mindset of these digitally fluent consumers. The retail experience needs to reflect the seismic shift in digital activity. ‘Great stores will have to be a truly immersing total experience - a unique and rich brand-led event that captures your heart’ (Stylus 2012: online). 38

Generation I

When it comes to “Generation I,” findings have shown that stores should not be designed for them or marketed at them, they should be designed in conjunction with them and communicated through them from peer to peer. Stores must aid the “Selfie” generation by creating touch-points for the consumer to promote themselves. At the same time retailers need to capture this generations state of partial attention by creating spaces with game-like qualities such as high vis screens, immersive graphics and a digital rewards scheme for being loyal consumers. This state of partial attention also calls for constant innovation and changes within retail environments in order to keep “Generation I” engaged. Although it might not seem relevant for a generation that has all the above traits and characteristics, however brand transparency is key. A generation growing up with an instant access to a wealth of knowledge will not be fooled by exaggerated marketing attempts, as they have seen it all before. The following section will take forward the key research findings throughout this report and consider how brands can adopt the themes discovered, to produce the perfect coherent retail experience for the “Generation I” consumer. Intangible ideas discussed throughout the report will be made into tangible recommendations.

Figure 33

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

Formulas for future retail THE EVOLUTION OF THE RETAIL ENVIRONMENT INTO MODERN DAY, TO APPEAL TO THE MODERN CONSUMER.

Generation I

This section of the report will identify how “Generation I’s” traits, examined previously, can be used by brands to create the perfect retail environment for a cohort of digital savvy consumers. ‘The upsurge in multi-channel retailing is promoting a rethink of the role of bricks & mortar stores’ (Stylus 2012: online). Overall research has shown that for physical retail locations to effectively continue to stay current when entering this digital revolution, stores will need to offer riveting, brand-led experiences (Fitch 2013: 15) which are less about selling and more about offering a vision into the world of your brand. Static spaces are no longer an option. The role that brands play in future generations, will remain at the fore front of importance as the consumerist society is only growing stronger. However In Attali’s 2011 utopian novel he predicts that ‘the lifespan of commercial brands will also be shorter and shorter; only the best ensconced and the best known globally will resist this lure of the new’ (Attali 2011: 119). The strategic outcomes, in this section, will offer solutions to assist brands in preventing failure due to the changing future landscape.

Adopting the digital revolution for brands, can no longer mean “social media.” We have seen brands attempt to embrace it, however as Fitch (2013: online) stated in a recent report on the retail landscape, brands are taking the worrying approach of “just add water” when bringing technology in-store, which is ‘typified by placing a tabletbased catalogue next to a rack of products on display. These digital devices remain largely ignored in store and aren’t used for their intended purpose of promoting the long-tail of products from that retailer’ (Shields et al 2013: online). This approach will not be effective once “Generation I” become the main consumer cohort. Given the importance of technology for this generation, brands should be ahead of the curve tech-wise with store environments that surprise, engage, delight and inform the consumer, not bore them by half-heartedly displaying an iPad. Brands, design and technology are three legs of a stool – they create the experiences through which consumers build relationships. A few successful brands of the future already understand this – Apple and Nike being the obvious innovators (Davidi 2013: online). However it is now up to other brands to recognise this change and embrace it. Considering how important it is for retail spaces to begin their adaptation into interactive consumer led hubs, the following outcomes do not specifically address one retail brand as it is crucial that the recommendations can be adopted and applied to all forms of stores such as clothing, food and home-ware.

Figure 34

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

Key Recommendations

‘‘Immersive, sensorially engaging and interactive interiors are helping retailers provide more memorable shopping experiences and showcases the continued relevance of bricks - and - mortar locations’ (Stylus 2013: online).

re 3

Phy-digital retail must be the new mindset of any brand that wants to successfully appeal to a generation who have grown up fully immersed in the digital world. It is important for the store design to replicate certain gaming aspects that “Generation Immersed” have grown up with. The store must have music - to “Generation I” this signifies being open and on. “Generation I” will orientate most effectively around a store by colour and contrast, so points of focus should be designed using bright and aesthetically striking graphics. Use interactive design features such as “Firewall interactive”(see appendix: 16.3) to make flat surfaces tactile, as clinical displays will be off putting for the gesture based “Generation Interactive.”

Generation I

Figure 35

Store design

Consider embedding cameras into shelving or displays around the store which use face recognition to personally remember and greet customers. The devices could also suggest items in-store specifically tailored to the customer’s taste. Highly personalised content is important to a self obsessed generation. ‘In the brave new world of TLDR (too long don’t read) visual messages are everything’ (Stylus 2011: online).

An Immersive retail environment that successfully appeals to “Generation Interactive” should include hi vis digital walls that are everchanging. The walls could display the store’s Instagram feed or customer’s artwork, it could also include a “Selfie space” near the till whereby consumers can snap themselves with what they have just bought. This could be then uploaded to the store’s and user’s Instagram. Pre-empting Instagram posts in such a way enables the store to advertise what they are currently doing, through their consumers.

Interactive mirrors

Figure 38

Figure 37

Fuel the â&#x20AC;&#x153;Seflieâ&#x20AC;? culture by enabling customers to promote and share images of themselves from within the store. Interactive mirrors will not only offer consumers the chance to try on clothes virtually, but also to share these images instantly via any chosen platform. Whether its sent by text to their mum or uploaded onto Instagram, this generation will appreciate the prompt peer response and in turn leading to more impulsive sales. No more giving the consumer time to go home and consider a purchase, the interactive mirror provides buyer reassurance and leads to purchases.

Sharing images directly from the store onto social media and the web will also promote the store through existing customer to new customer - widening the brandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s consumer network.

Figure 39

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

Device to store connection

The first overarching step of uniting the physical with the digital in-store, is by creating device to store connections. By 2020 there will be an estimated ‘50billion connected devices’ (LS:N Global 2013) on the planet, so ensuring your brand has full access to these devices is key. Device to store connection will boost brand to consumer bond, increase dwell time and drive additional spend. Brands can present personal offers through customers devices whilst they shop in store. This could be tailored to items customers have been looking at or googling / suggestions of pieces that will go with previous purchases. Using image recognition, a virtual “clothes try on” app could be devised. If consumers don’t want to try on something they could be presented with virtual images of themselves in the chosen clothes. This image could be assembled from 3-D models of their body that are updated every morning when their network enabled weighing scales and smart bathroom mirror assess what their body shape is today.

Generation I

Image recognition could also be used to show the provenance of merchandise. By highlighting the act of making and explaining through the heart of the retail experience, brands can create lasting ties with partial attention span consumers. The journey of a product could be revealed through google glass, smart watch or phone for the consumers to interact with. Revealing how a product was made provides both a vital sense of brand transparency and education, both factors increasingly important to “Generation Information,” a generation bought up with an instant access to a wealth of knowledge. One of the first things we like to know about people when we meet them is where they’re from and whats their story so replicating this through a brand is an invaluable way to build consumer and brand/ product relationships. Brands connecting with personal devices gives rise to a new age of predictive retail. ‘Imagine a future in which marketeers influence products, pricing and branding based on deep insights of how people actually use their product. A future in which marketeers anticipate customer needs before they’re expressed’ (Smolan et al 2012: 21).

Augmented reality

Figure 40

Creating a seamless relationship between the physical and digital within the store can be achieved by using Augmented Reality. The retail environment can be bought to life by enabling consumers to use their devices to scan over a wide range of touch points throughout the store, producing them with an interactive connection that appears on their screens. There are many ways to utilise AR effectively within the retail environment and contrasting brands can take this on accordingly. Whether it’s consumers using their mobile phone to discover an invisible world, offering elaborate imagery and myth to a product or a more detailed source of information offering the user individual expertise; AR can build emotive ties between consumer and product. For example, a consumer could be shown demonstrations of how to pair an item of clothing they are trying on with other items in the store which could inspire the purchase of more items than the consumer intended.

Figure 41

For food stores AR is ideal for showing what dish a certain product could be made into. It can also broadcast instant reviews from a live stream of consumers who have previously bought the product. Utilising peer to peer recommendations is something important to “Generation Information.” AR has the potential to add an invaluable element to any retail experience. It has the power to capture a generation who are always switched on, rivalling their other vast digital realms. Use AR to enter into customer’s devices so their focus is on your brand and not other things happening in their world. Apps such as Aurasma can be used to create this (see appendix: 16.4). If AR seems currently seems like a daunting prospect, US tech market intelligence company ABI research have predicted that ‘the market for AR in the US will have grown from £3.6m in 2008 to a staggering £211m by 2014’ (Stylus 2011: online). Better to be ahead of the times by adopting it as soon as possible.

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

Figure 42

With the growing scope of the wearables market predicted, by Credit Suisse, to grow from around $3 billion to $30 billion (Kansara 2014: online) brands need to piggy back onto a technology giant to stay current in the digital age and integrate mega-system aesthetics into graphics and retail design. A starting point for adopting the wearables trend could be pairing with Google Glass and creating a tailored in-store app which connects with the glasses. Google Glass can be used to obscure online and offline boundaries in a retail environment, more so than other devices as it is a ubiquitous gadget. By looking at a product, the glasses could show who is wearing that item on Instagram or any bloggers featuring it on the web. The glasses could also give opportunity to consumers to have their own say when it comes to the environment they are shopping in - they could voice live criticisms about certain aspects of the store commenting on what they want to change. The glasses could then send this message to the store and the consumer could see and feel change happening around them whether it be quieter music, the dimming of lights or a certain image being projected through the store, making the customers feel they are involved in the design process of the shop.

Generation I

Figure 43

5 Glass

Google

Another aspect of utilising Google Glass could be a reward scheme. This will appeal to “Generation Immersed” as growing up in a gaming society, rewards appeal to them greatly. When a consumer is looking at a certain item or shelf, a promotional offer could appear in the consumers glasses, tailoring each promotion to each customer in such a way offers incentives to buy the product and keep the consumer coming back. Having a Google Glass app will also enable brands to utilise a more suited form of marketing to target “Generation Information” - peer to peer. An image recognition app could be devised for Google Glass that recognises your brand’s clothing. When users are wearing Google Glass outside of the store and they pass someone who is wearing your brand’s clothing, the glasses will pick it up and inform the consumer of how much it is, where the nearest store is, how many are in stock and who else has been wearing it. This is a kind of marketing enabled through consumers does not need any work from the brand but has a very high success rate as highlighted in the research when discussing peer influence. Google glass is an excellent tool for retailers to adopt as it centres around a more integrated, seamless and hands free version of device to store connection. Responsive technologies are key in retail as they can guide the customer journey and reveal products in exciting ways.

Way-finding

For a contemporary retail store it is important to use modern day devices to guide consumers in directions you want them to go, to certain points of interest. Using devices such as Google Glass or Figure 44 smartphones means brands can tailor consumer routes to specific points in the store that brands know will interest them. For example, someone who is an avid gig goer (which can be seen through their purchase history on their browser) may be guided to the printed tee section which features t-shirts with bands on. Signage and instructions within a store are no longer relevant to “Generation Intuitive” consumers, so it will be vital to engage and guide them through their devices using AR and other tools. Responsive lighting solutions could be used to help steer customers around a store, boosting dwell time and delighting them away from their devices. Great Ormond Street Hospital’s interactive wall is a great example of this and uses “gamification” to guide children down corridors temporarily distracting them from the daunting prospect of going into the operating theatre.

Figure 45

Having sensors in the wall means that the children’s movements are detected and moving images of deers light up and run through the interactive woodland across the wall, following and chasing the children as they move down the corridor. This kind of interactive wayfinding could be used in store to divert consumers attention from other distractions and fully immerse them in exploring the store. For a generation so consumed within their own media, this will be a demanding challenge. Wayfinding can also be used outside of store to encourage shoppers to go to other places linked with the brand, such as coffee shops where they can collect points on their devices for checking in, in a Foursquare concept. A sense of community can be encouraged through this by offering more points for the more friends a shopper has with them. This would also increase footfall on the highstreet. The ubiquity of current day devices and their capacity for assisting navigation is advancing the game for in-store marketing so brands must consider this when creating a seamless retail experience that appeals to “Generation Interactive.”

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

Gamifying the store ‘Play is the axis of connection’ (Stylus 2013: online).

Figure 46

Generation I

Considering that “Generation Interactive” are the gaming generation, it is important for retail environments to reach out to them in this way. Offer consumers a reason for coming in-store, shopping and sharing. Let the consumer participate in challenges and accumulate points which can then be redeemed for rewards and, as mentioned previously, follow in Foursquare’s footsteps and reward users for logging their presence in at the store.

It is also a good idea for brands to “gamify” the surrounding high street, through an app, encouraging consumers to initially come into that area with money off tokens off in nearby cafes or fun walks in neighbouring parks so the consumer wants to spend the day in that area. Creating this, will mean consumers are more likely to come back as they have positive thoughts associated with this area. ‘A tough economic climate has nourished a growing “coupon culture” where consumers across the board are hungrier than ever for added value’ (Stylus 2012: online). Creating games and offering playful store incentives that entice via the promises of rewards can lessen consumers worry over money and add a fun element to the shopping experience appealing to the generation’s immersive side.

Being involved in all elements of the brand

Figure 47

It is important, when creating retail experiences, to offer an element of creative collaboration which “Generation Influential” can not only buy into but help create. Opening up competitions for art work or light installations that will be featured in the store will offer a sense of value for consumers and again this type of participation will create a stronger “brand to consumer” relationship. This generation of influencers also desire involvement throughout the entire chain of activities that brings a product to store - from conception, creation and even marketing. Brands could offer in-store 3D printers with a range of initial designs which consumers can then manipulate and adapt to exactly how they want. The product will then be conceived there in front of them, leaving them with their own version of a branded product to take home. Creating personalisation to products in this way appeals to this narcissistic generation.

Figure 48

As previously mentioned, wearers of Google Glass could also give real time opinions on the store which could be linked in with the shops lighting/music/visual projection system. Depending on how the consumer is feeling, they have they opportunity to change the store environment accordingly. Constant innovation in this way will largely appeal to “Generation Immediate.”

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

9 Figure 49

Generation I

24 hour store

As boundaries between online and offline life are becoming more obscured, retail will need to offer a solution to shopping 24/7, physically, in order to engage with “Generation Internet.” Kate Spade is a retailer that has already started doing this by introducing a 24 hour window shop, whereby customers can purchase from the shop’s window and have the item delivered to them within one hour. Retailers must offer interactive window displays which catch consumers when they are out and about, letting them purchase on the go at any time, day or night. Augmented Reality devices embedded into the window can show the consumer virtually how they will look in the product and exactly what size they will need, making the experience much more trustworthy than shopping blindly online.

Figure 50

Stores could be used to hold evening events, encouraging consumers to go out in the area and then come shopping afterwards, showing that the store really does cater for a 24/7 consumer’s needs.

“Cloud based” stores

“Generation Internet” will be consumers less concerned with physically owning possessions and more obsessed with having access when they need it. Retailers must respond to this by using ‘The Cloud” as a model to base their stores upon.

Figure 51

Brands may chose to adopt this by creating purely showroom stores whereby consumers can come to try on and look at clothes but not actually buy, that is left for online. Other stores could designate a small area in each store where items can be loaned out so consumers don’t have to physically own them. This could be only applicable to the loyalest consumers, who have gained rewards through shopping frequently from the brand.

Music stores, like HMV, loosing out because of society becoming more “cloud based,” could open “cloud” stores - a place where you can only download music and no physical objects are sold. These “cloud” hubs could be an area to listen to music and sample songs through your own form of speaker whilst socialising. Once you have listened to a track you are given the opportunity to have it downloaded straight to your device by a wireless tool. The community aspect could rebuild a loyal consumer base for HMV and keep it on the high street. Amazon’s approach to bridging the gap between digital and physical products is implemented by offering a digital download with every physical item purchased or vice-versa. Retailers need to try replicate this in-store. A strategy for this could be to offer money off in-store every time a consumer shops online, thus encouraging in-store footfall.

Part 6 | Strategic Outcomes

S W O T

Creating a positive solution to a technology based future - accepting that this is the way in which society is going and adapting to it.

Very expensive for brands to take on all the points from the strategy. High-street brands don’t necessarily have money of this amount to work with.

Bridging the gap between online & offline worlds - keeps the “online” generation shopping and on the highstreet.

Image recognition apps and predictive retail all have issues surrounding how comfortable the consumer would feel with their data being monitored.

Creating more communal ways of shopping - making sure technological advancements don’t create solidarity. Offering solutions to brands that may be becoming less relevant in the digital age.

Enables consumers to understand the provenance of what they’re buying - could hinder a throwaway societies actions by making items more emotionally durable.

Although vast proposals, smaller brands could take on one point and make it a USP. Or themes could be adopted in a lesser, cheaper way. Through pairing with the likes of “Google glass”, brands can expand and open up to many other areas. Opportunity to really understand and engage with consumers in a way retail hasn’t before.

Opportunity to piggy back onto the “Mega-systems” of the future by integrating google-glass or wearable tech apps into retail environments, will ensure staying ahead of the curve with technology developments etc.

Generation I

Vast proposals - only big brands could take them on. Brands may find this too hard to comprehend as it is not about the now it is very future thinking. Maybe too future thinking?

Hard for people to comprehend now because it is a solution for the future, so brands won’t necessarily see the relevance now. The “Mega-sytems” that have been predicted to take over the retail landscape in the near future may get to this before brands do and brands other than google and apple could become redundant.

As the previous SWOT model shows, this strategy for a brand to adopt, does have a lot of implications regarding cost and feasibility. However the challenge for brands to stay visible and relevant in physical form in this ever advancing digital age will, and is, already starting to be seen. Doing nothing will not be an option. Although this strategy may be elaborate it will be vital for brands to take on, if even only a more limited version so digital tastemakers know they are being catered to. Act fast, focus on app development to connect devices to the retail store, and exploit technology brands to break into the wearables market and begin the embark on attracting that

ncreasingly

mportant â&#x20AC;&#x153;Generation

ii â&#x20AC;?

ndividual.

Part 7 | Referencing

Generation I

Part 7 Referencing

.................... Illustrations .................... References .................... Bibliography

Part 7 | Referencing

Illustrations

Figure 1 - Own Image, 2014. Digital front cover. [Graphics]. Figure 2 - Olo, 2013. Servitude [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://www.deviantart. com/?qh=&section=&global=1&q=servitude&offset=15 [Accessed 2 January 2014] Figure 3 - Own Image, 2014. Mini robot. [Graphics]. Figure 4 - Own Image, 2014. Digitally branded. [Photograph]. Figure 5 - Own Image, 2014. Mintel Infographic. [Graphics]. FIgure 6 - Own Image, 2014. Mintel Infographic 2. [Graphics]. Figure 7 - Own Image, 2013. Ella on iPad. [Photograph]. Figure 8 - Own Image, 2013. Archie on iPad. [Photograph]. Figure 9 - Own Image, 2013. Daniel on Laptop. [Photograph]. Figure 10 - Own Image, 2013. Jacob on PS Vita. [Photograph]. Figure 11 - Own Image, 2013. PS Vita. [Photograph]. Figure 12 - Own Image, 2013. Furby interaction. [Photograph]. Figure 13 - Own Image, 2013. Interactive screens. [Photograph]. Figure 14 - Kamath, G., 2012. Evolution of generations [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://ganeshkamath89. blogspot.co.uk [Accessed 5 January 2014] Figure 15 - Kamath, G., 2012. Evolution of generations [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://ganeshkamath89. blogspot.co.uk [Accessed 5 January 2014] Figure 16 - Own Image, 2014. Generational timeline. [Graphics]. Figure 17 - Own Image, 2014. Who are Generation I background. [Graphics]. Figure 18 - Own Image, 2014. Generation I background. [Graphics]. Figure 19 - Own Image, 2014. Interactive finger. [Graphics]. Figure 20 - Own Image, 2014. Screen Infographic. [Graphics]. Figure 21- Harker, J., Folk digital re-design [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://payload53.cargocollective. com/1/5/174860/3370696/redweb.jpg [Accessed 28 December 2013] Figure 22 - Own Image, 2014. Selfie background. [Graphics]. Figure 23 - Boelaars, T., Esquire US - New world order [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://cargocollective.com/ timboelaars/esquire-us [Accessed 20 December 2013] Figure 24 - Own Image, 2014. Generation Internet background. [Graphics]. Figure 25 - Own Image, 2014. Digital vs Physical Toy Tally. [Graphics].

Generation I

Figure 26 - Own Image, 2014. Internet consumption pie chart. [Graphics]. Figure 27 - Boelaars, T., Esquire US - Social networking [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://cargocollective.com/ timboelaars/esquire-us [Accessed 20 December 2013] Figure 28 - Vectorstock, Mouse with wire [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/ composite/67,59/technology-vector-416759.jpg [Accessed 15 January 2014] Figure 29 - Depositphotos, Sketched speech bubbles [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://st.depositphotos. com/1115174/1277/i/950/depositphotos_12774321-Set-of-Hand-drawn-vector-Comical-Speech-Bubbles.jpg [Accessed 15 January 2014] Figure 30 - Flintoff, J., 2013. Switched on brain [Manipulated]. [Graphics]. [online] Available at: http://www.theschooloflife.com/ blog/2013/08/anything-becomes-possible/ [Accessed 10 January 2014] Figure 31 - Own Image, 2014. Mobile media Infographic. [Graphics]. Figure 32 - Own Image, 2014. Generation Influential Infographic. [Graphics]. Figure 33 - Own Image, 2014. Conclusion background. [Graphics]. Figure 34 - Own Image, 2014. Formulas for future retail background. [Graphics]. Figure 35 - Starr, B., 2013. Firewall Interactive. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www.visualnews.com/2013/01/15/ firewall-an-interactive-fabric-installation/ [Accessed 19 January 2014] Figure 36 - Own Image, 2014. Graphic paintbrush. [Graphics]. Figure 37 - Clark, S., 2009. Interactive mirrors and the future of fashion.[Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www. redcmarketing.net/blog/marketing/digital-video-interactive-mirrors-and-the-future-of-consumer-fashion/ [Accessed 19 January 2014] Figure 38 - Own Image, 2014. Graphic of mirror. [Graphics]. Figure 39 - Own Image, 2014. Devices connecting to the store graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 40 - Own Image, 2014. AR code graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 41 - QR code press, 2012. Augmented shopping experience. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www.qrcodepress.com/ how-to-perfect-the-augmented-shopping-experience/8513132/ [Accessed 19 January 2014] Figure 42 - Own Image, 2014. Google Glass graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 43 - Own Image, 2014. Google glass mock up. [Graphics]. Figure 44 - Own Image, 2014. Wayfinding arrow graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 45 - Own Image, 2014. Wayfinding on phone mock up. [Graphics]. Figure 46 - Own Image, 2014. Playstation graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 47 - Own Image, 2014. Involved in all elements graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 48 - Dezeen, 2013. Makerbot Desktop 3D printer. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://static.dezeen.com/ uploads/2013/08/dezeen_Makerbot_Replicator_2_Dsktp_3D_Printer_microsoft_3sq.jpg [Accessed 19 January 2014] Figure 49 - Own Image, 2014. Clock graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 50 - Free, Z., 2013. Kate Spade saturday window shop. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://prexamples. com/2013/07/24-hour-window-shopping-kate-spade-launches-new-saturday-collection/ [Accessed 19 January 2014] Figure 51 - Own Image, 2014. Cloud graphic. [Graphics]. Figure 52 - Own Image, 2014. i background. [Graphics].

Part 7 | Referencing

References Attali, J., 2011. A Brief History of the Future: A Brave and Controversial Look at the Twenty - First Century. New York: Skyhorse Publishing Inc. BBC news, 2013. ‘Selfie’ named by Oxford Dictionaries as word of 2013 [online]. London: BBC news. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24992393 [Accessed 3 January 2014]. Cuddleford-Jones, M., 2013. The future face of shopping [online]. London: Marketing Week. Available at: http://www. marketingweek.co.uk/trends/the-future-face-of-shopping/4007755.article [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Chatfield, T., 2012. How to Thrive in the Digital Age. London: MacMillan. Davidi, A., 2013. Design, technology and brands: Q&A with Toby Southgate, The Brand Union [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-network-blog/2013/mar/14/brandsdesign-technology-consumer [Accessed 19 October 2013] Davidson, L., 2013. Tablets are breeding a generation of angry birds playing babies [online]. New York: Quartz. Available at: http://qz.com/140494/tablets-are-breeding-a-generation-of-angry-birds-playing-babies/ [Accessed 28 October 2013] a FITCH, 2013. Designing retail for the constant state of partial attention. [online]. Available via: FITCH [Accessed: 10 October 2013]. Grail Research, 2011. Consumers of Tomorrow: Insights and Observations of Generation Z. [online]. Available via: Grail Research [Accessed 10 October 2013]. Herring, S., 2008. Questioning the Generational Divide, in Buckingham, D., 2008. Youth, Identity and Digital Media. Massachusetts: MIT JWT, 2012. Gen Z: Digital in their DNA [online]. Available via: JWT [Accessed 3 October 2013]. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010. Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. [online]. Available via: KaiserFamilyFoundation [Accessed: 8 December 2013]. Kansara, V., 2014. Behind Intel’s New Fashion Collaborations [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2014/01/intel-opening-ceremony-barneys-cfda-ces-wearables. html?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=efa30a2728-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d2191372b3efa30a2728-417005721 [Accessed 6 January 2014] McCrindle, M., 2009. The ABC of XYZ : Understanding the global generations. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Mintel, 2013. How big is m-commerce? [online]. Available via: Mintel [Accessed 1 September 2013].

Generation I

Mintel, 2013. Review of 2013 consumer trends in the clothing market. [online]. Available via: Mintel [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Montgomery, K., 2002. Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture, in, Feilitzen, C., Carlsson, U., 2002. Children, young people and media globalisation. Goteborg: UNESCO Naughton, J., 2013. Aldous Huxley: the prophet of our brave new digital dystopia [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/aldous-huxley-prophet-dystopia-cs-lewis [Accessed 22 November 2013]. Ofcom, 2013. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report [online]. Available via: Ofcom [Accessed 21 November 2013]. Prenksy, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp.1, 2, 106. Raymond, M., 2013. LS:N Global: Strange Days student conference. [Lecture to Nottingham Students, Broadway Cinema]. 24 April 2013. Sandbox Summit - Alison Arling, The Intelligence Group, 2012. [YouTube] 360Kid, 22 April 2012. Available at: http:// www.youtube.com/watch feature=player_embedded&v=XirKY6unV5w Schmidt, E., Cohen, J., 2013. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. United States: Random House. Schor, J., 2003. The Commodification of Childhood: Tales from the Advertising Front Lines, 5 (2), 7-23. Shields, A., Greenhafgh, T., 2013. Retail with unique experience signatures [online]. London: FITCH. Available at: http:// www.fitch.com/content/uploads/2013/05/BrandZ_2013_FITCH_essay.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2013] Sinha, I., Foscht, T., 2007. Reverse Psychology Marketing: The Death of Traditional Marketing and the Rise of the New “Pull” Game. Hampshire : Palgrave MacMillan Smith, M., 2013. Unknown [online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/tiffaniedarke/status/408315279790583808 [Accessed 4 December 2013]. Smolan, R., Erwitt, J., 2012. The Human Face of Big Data. New York: Sterling. Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1997. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. New York: Broadway Books. Stylus, 2011. Frontline: Open Communications [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2011. Augmented Retail - The Virtual World is Here. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2012. Future stores: Brand Hubs & Product Playgrounds. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2012. Power of Play. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Smart Teens. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. US teens & Social Media [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Next Generation For Kids. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Tapscott, D., 2008. Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw Hill Too young for technology, 2013. [TV] ITV, 28 November 2013.

Part 7 | Referencing

Bibliography - books Anderson, C., 2012. Makers: The new industrial revolution. New York: Random House Attali, J., 2011. A Brief History of the Future: A Brave and Controversial Look at the Twenty - First Century. New York: Skyhorse Publishing Inc. Bergstrom, B., 2008. Essentials of Visual Communication. London: Laurence King Blanchard, T., 2004. Fashion and Graphics. London: Laurence King Chatfield, T., 2012. How to Thrive in the Digital Age. London: MacMillan. Gladwell, M., 2000. The Tipping Point. London: Little, Brown Hammersley, B., 2012. 64 Things You Need to Know Now for Then: How to Face the Digital Future without Fear. London: Hodder & Stoughton. Herring, S., 2008. Questioning the Generational Divide, in Buckingham, D., 2008. Youth, Identity and Digital Media. Massachusetts: MIT Bergh, J., Behrer, M., 2011. How cool brands stay hot: Branding to Generation Y. London: Kogan Page Limited. Kennedy, M., GENERATION Z: The Global Revolution. McCrindle, M., 2009. The ABC of XYZ : Understanding the global generations. Sydney: University of New South Wales. Montgomery, K., 2002. Digital Kids: The New On-Line Children’s Consumer Culture, in, Feilitzen, C., Carlsson, U., 2002. Children, young people and media globalisation. Goteborg: UNESCO Morozov, E., 2013. To save everything click here: The folly of technological solutionism. New York: PublicAffairs Schmidt, E., Cohen, J., 2013. The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business. United States: Random House. Sinha, I., Foscht, T., 2007. Reverse Psychology Marketing: The Death of Traditional Marketing and the Rise of the New “Pull” Game. Hampshire : Palgrave MacMillan Smolan, R., Erwitt, J., 2012. The Human Face of Big Data. New York: Sterling. Strauss, W., Howe, N., 1997. The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy. New York: Broadway Books. Tapscott, D., 2008. Grown up digital: How the net generation is changing your world. New York: McGraw Hill 60

Generation I

- journals Holt, D., 2002. Why Do Brands Cause Trouble? A Dialectic Theory of Consumer Culture and Branding, Journal of Consumer Research, 29 (1), 70â&#x20AC;&#x201C;90. Prenksy, M., 2001. Digital Natives, Digital Immigrants, On the Horizon, 9 (5), pp.1, 2, 106. Schor, J., 2003. The Commodification of Childhood: Tales from the Advertising Front Lines, 5 (2), 7-23.

- videos Firewall, 2012. [Vimeo] Aaron Sherwood, 2012. Available at: http://vimeo.com/54882144 Generation I. [Vimeo] The future laboratory, 2013. Available at: http://soundcry.com/vimeo/57867722/ Generation-I#.UmeOHxZQY70 John Waterworth - MujiComp or RyanairComp: What is the future of the Internet of Things? 2013. [YouTube] Digital Shoreditch, 2 July 2013. Available at: http://the-future-is-here.com/mujicomp-orryanaircomp-what-is-the-future-of-the-internet-of-things/ Kevin Kelly: The next 5,000 days of the web, 2007. [TED] Ted, December 2007. Available at: http://www.ted. com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_the_next_5_000_days_of_the_web.html Kids through the ages: a film by generation media, 2013. [YouTube] GenerationMediaUk, 14 March 2013. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZelo6C0iJI Matt Mills: Image recognition that triggers augmented reality, 2012. [TED] Aurasma, July 2012. Available at: http://www.ted.com/talks/matt_mills_image_recognition_that_triggers_augmented_reality.html Sandbox Summit - Alison Arling, The Intelligence Group, 2012. [YouTube] 360Kid, 22 April 2012. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch feature=player_embedded&v=XirKY6unV5w Strange days indeed: LSN Global trend briefing Spring/Summer 2013, 2013. [Vimeo] The future laboratory, April 2013. Available at: http://vimeo.com/62262627 Sugra Mitra: Build a school in the cloud, 2013. [TED] Ted, February 2013. Available at: http://www.ted.com/ talks/sugata_mitra_build_a_school_in_the_cloud.html The New Digital Age: Reshaping the Future of People, Nations and Business, 2013. [YouTube] LSE, 1 July 2013. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QhYsCIRj1k 3 misconceptions marketers have about Generation Z, 2013. [YouTube] iMediaConnection, 2 December 2013. Available at: http://www.imediaconnection.com/content/35535.asp#multiview

Part 7 | Referencing

Bibliography - websites Abensur, E., 2013. Can google glass help retailers? [online]. London: econsultancy. Available at: http:// econsultancy.com/uk/blog/63422-can-google-glass-help-retailers [Accessed 27 October 2013] Anatole, E., 2013. Generation Z: Rebels with a cause [online]. New York: Forbes. Available at: http://www. forbes.com/sites/onmarketing/2013/05/28/generation-z-rebels-with-a-cause/ [Accessed 10 October 2013]. BBC news, 2013. High street chain store closures soar, says research [online]. London: BBC news. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-21611772 [Accessed 2 October 2013] BBC news, 2013. â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Selfieâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; named by Oxford Dictionaries as word of 2013 [online]. London: BBC news. Available at: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24992393 [Accessed 3 January 2014]. Brandweiner, N., 2013. What does google glass mean for marketers? [online]. Bristol: My customer. Available at: http://www.mycustomer.com/feature/marketing-technology/what-does-google-glass-meanmarketers/164924 [Accessed 12 October 2013] Brown, J., 2006. Exploring the edge [online]. USA: John Seely Brown. Available at: http://johnseelybrown. com/Change%20article.pdf [Accessed 29 Novemeber 2013] Butler, S., 2013. What small businesses can learn from the high street [online]. London: The guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/sep/23/ed-miliband-pledges-help-over-businessrates [Accessed 14 October 2013] Cuddleford-Jones, M., 2013. The future face of shopping [online]. London: Marketing Week. Available at: http://www.marketingweek.co.uk/trends/the-future-face-of-shopping/4007755.article [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Davidi, A., 2013. Design, technology and brands: Q&A with Toby Southgate, The Brand Union [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network/media-networkblog/2013/mar/14/brands-design-technology-consumer [Accessed 19 October 2013] Davidson, L., 2013. Tablets are breeding a generation of angry birds playing babies [online]. New York: Quartz. Available at: http://qz.com/140494/tablets-are-breeding-a-generation-of-angry-birds-playing-babies/ [Accessed 28 October 2013] Dezeen, 2013. Wearable gadgets serve as a relentless reality check [online]. Stoke newington: Dezeen. Available at: http://www.dezeen.com/2013/03/28/marcus-fairs-opinion-wearable-technology/ [Accessed 28 October 2013] Dredge, S., 2013. Digital Kids: how children are using devices, apps and media in 2013 [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/oct/31/digital-kids-devices-appsmedia#block-527273ade4b0ad7c52b60498 [Accessed 31 October 2013]. 62

Generation I

Gastelu, G., 2013. Generation Z designs a car for Nissan and it looks pretty old [online]. USA: Fox News. Available at: http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2013/11/22/generation-z-designs-car-for-nissan-and-it-lookspretty-old/ [Accessed 22 Novemeber 2013] Gmoser, J., 2013. Gaming expert explains why tablet games are so addictive to children [online]. USA: Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/tablet-games-addictive-kids-2013-11 [Accessed 3 October 2013] Israel, S., 2013. Age of context draft introduction [online]. New York: Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes. com/sites/shelisrael/2013/02/24/age-of-context-draft-introduction-2/3/ [Accessed 1 October 2013] Israel, S., 2013. How fashion retailer burberry keep customers coming back for more [online]. New York: Forbes. Available at: http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2013/10/28/how-fashion-retailer-burberry-keepscustomers-coming-back-for-more/ [Accessed 6 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2012. The next chapter of content and commerce integration [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2012/11/fashion-2-0-the-next-chapter-of-contentand-commerce-integration.html [Accessed 18 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. The store is everywhere [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www. businessoffashion.com/2013/07/the-store-is-everywhere-frog-forrester-google-nike-apple-steve-jobs-thefancy-joe-einhorn.html [Accessed 1 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. Mary Meeker’s annual internet trend report highlights mobile momentum, wearables and digital china [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/05/ in-annual-internet-trends-report-mary-meeker-underscores-mobile-momentum-wearables-and-digitalchina.html [Accessed 5 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. Fashion brands absent from wearable tech revolution [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/05/amidst-flurry-of-activity-fashion-brandsabsent-from-wearables-revolution.html [Accessed 15 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. Apple CEO hints at gamechanging wearable devices [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/05/apple-ceo-hints-at-gamechanging-wearable-devices. html [Accessed 13 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. Did apple hire former yves saint laurent ceo to work on wearables [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/07/did-apple-hire-former-yvessaint-laurent-ceo-to-work-on-wearables.html [Accessed 27 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2013. Nikes new fuelband and the age of social products [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2013/10/nike-stafan-olander-fuelband-and-the-age-ofsocial-products.html [Accessed 23 October 2013] Kansara, V., 2014. Behind Intel’s New Fashion Collaborations [online]. London: Business of fashion. Available at: http://www.businessoffashion.com/2014/01/intel-opening-ceremony-barneys-cfda-ces-wearables. html?utm_source=Subscribers&utm_campaign=efa30a2728-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ d2191372b3-efa30a2728-417005721[Accessed 6 January 2014] Kiss, J., 2010. Child’s play: the rise of Generation Z [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www. theguardian.com/lg-talking-technology/rise-of-generation-z [Accessed 10 October 2013] Lewis, T., 2012. Can anyone save our high streets? [online]. London: the guardian. Available via: http://www. theguardian.com/society/2012/apr/28/high-streets [Accessed 5 Novemeber 2013]

Part 7 | Referencing

Bibliography - websites Mail Online, 2013. Touchscreen-reliant kids can’t hold pencil! [online]. London: Daily Star. Available at: http://archive.thedailystar.net/beta2/news/ipad-reliant-kids-cant-hold-pencil/ [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Masterson, C., 2013. What small businesses can learn from the high street [online]. London: The guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/small-business-network/2013/sep/20/how-to-be-as-successful-asbig-high-street-brands [Accessed 1 October 2013] Meeker, M., 2013. Internet trends D11 conference [online] California: KPCB. Available via: http://www.kpcb. com/insights/2013-internet-trends [Accessed 5 October 2013] Miletic, D., 2004. Ageing Australia is our ‘destiny’: Costello [online]. Australia: The Age. Available at: http:// www.theage.com.au/news/National/Ageing-Australia-is-our-destiny-Costello/2004/11/25/1101219650971. html [Accessed 20 October 2013]. Myers, T., 2013. How i taught my son to love vinyl’s [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http:// www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/dec/26/how-i-taught-my-son-to-love-vinyl?CMP=fb_us [Accessed 26 December 2013]. Naughton, J., 2013. Aldous Huxley: the prophet of our brave new digital dystopia [online]. London: The Guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/aldous-huxley-prophetdystopia-cs-lewis [Accessed 22 November 2013] Nieburg, O., 2013. Experiential retail can build confectionery brand loyalty [online]. France: Confectionery News. Available at: http://www.confectionerynews.com/Markets/Experiential-retail-can-build-confectionerybrand-loyalty [Accessed 2 October 2013] Rigby, C., 2012. Internet retailing 2012 show report [online]. London: Internet retailing. Available at: http://internetretailing.net/2012/10/ir-2012-show-report-house-of-fraser-on-its-dotcom-store-and-more/ [Accessed 1 October 2013] Saunders, N., 2013. What technologies are on the horizon for the retail industry? [online] London: The guardian. Available at: http://www.theguardian.com/media-network-partner-zone-ebay/technology-retailindustry [Accessed 5 October 2013] Shields, A., Greenhafgh, T., 2013. Retail with unique experience signatures [online]. London: FITCH. Available at: http://www.fitch.com/content/uploads/2013/05/BrandZ_2013_FITCH_essay.pdf [Accessed 20 October 2013] Shontell, A., 2013. Fear the technology sluts and appaholics [online]. USA: Business Insider. Available at: http://www.businessinsider.com/fear-the-technology-sluts-and-appaholics-2013-11 [Accessed 18 Novemeber 2013]

Generation I

Skarda, E., 2011. Experiential retail: the next technological revolution? [online]. California: Time Tech. Available at: http://techland.time.com/2011/02/15/experiential-retail-the-next-technological-revolution/ [Accessed 12 October 2013] Smith, K., 2013. Overcoming showrooming [online]. London: EDITD. Available via: http://editd.com/ blog/2013/06/overcoming-showrooming/ [Accessed 10 October 2013] Smith, M., 2013. Unknown [online]. Available at: https://twitter.com/tiffaniedarke/ status/408315279790583808 [Accessed 4 December 2013] Stokes, T., 2013. Who is Generation Z? What marketing leaders need to know to build their brand with this new Generation [online]. Massachusetts: Forrester. Available at: http://blogs.forrester.com/tracy_stokes/1302-12-who_is_generation_z_what_marketing_leaders_need_to_know_to_build_their_brand_with_this_ new_generation [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Tett, G., 2013. The digital worldâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s other equality problem [online]. London: Financial Times. Available at: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/5d444c84-523d-11e3-8c42-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2laLX98jQ [Accessed 22 Novemeber 2013] Thieke, D., 2013. Innovators Wanted: Marketing to Generation Live [online]. USA: Buisness2community. Available at: http://www.business2community.com/marketing/innovators-wanted-marketing-generationlive-0673783#uYkvJSMJKfcptGS6.99 [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Wheeler, G., 2013. The curious case of the curious consumer [online]. London: WDMP. Available at: http:// www.wdmp.co.uk/2013/03/the-curious-case-of-the-curious-consumer/ [Accessed 16 October 2013] Wright, T., 2013. On the Job: New generation Z is arriving in the workplace [online]. Columbus: Wright Choice. Available at: http://www.wrightchoice.org/index.php/blog/entry/on-the-job-new-generation-z-isarriving-in-the-workplace [Accessed 20 October 2013]

- TV shows

Too young for technology, 2013. [TV] ITV, 28 November 2013.

- speeches Raymond, M., 2013. LS:N Global: Strange Days student conference. [Lecture to Nottingham Students, Broadway Cinema]. 24 April 2013.

Part 7 | Referencing

Bibliography - online reports Acxiom, 2011. Tug of love: How technology is changing the relationship between consumers and brands and what marketers can do about it [online]. Available via: Acxiom [Accessed 1 November 2013]. Deloitte, 2011. The changing face of retail. The store of the future: the new role of the store in a multichannel environment [online]. Available via: Deloitte [Accessed 13 October 2013]. Department of children and youth affairs, 2004. Play and technology for children aged 4-12 [online]. Available via: http://www.dcya.gov.ie/documents/research/play_and_technology.pdf [Accessed 1 October 2013]. FITCH, 2013. Designing retail for the constant state of partial attention. [online]. Available via: FITCH [Accessed: 10 October 2013]. Grail Research, 2011. Consumers of Tomorrow: Insights and Observations of Generation Z. [online]. Available via: Grail Research [Accessed 10 October 2013]. JWT, 2012. Gen Z: Digital in their DNA [online]. Available via: JWT [Accessed 3 October 2013]. Kaiser Family Foundation, 2010. Generation M²: Media in the Lives of 8-18 Year Olds. [online]. Available via: KaiserFamilyFoundation [Accessed: 8 December 2013]. Mintel, 2013. How big is m-commerce? [online]. Available via: Mintel [Accessed 1 September 2013]. Mintel, 2013. Review of 2013 consumer trends in the clothing market. [online]. Available via: Mintel [Accessed 28 December 2013]. Ofcom, 2013. Children and Parents: Media Use and Attitudes Report [online]. Available via: Ofcom [Accessed 21 November 2013]. Rainmaker Thinking, 2013. Meet Generation Z: The second generation within the giant “Millennial” cohort. [online]. Available via: Rainmaker Thinking [Accessed: 10 October 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Next Generation For Kids. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2012. Power of Play. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2012. Product Playgrounds. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2012. Future stores: Brand Hubs & Product Playgrounds. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Augmented Reality Creates Child-Friendly Newspapers. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. 66

Generation I

Stylus, 2011. Augmented Retail - The Virtual World is Here. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Agile Futures: Human First. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 4 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Agile Futures: Elastic Tech. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Agile Futures: Chameleon. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Cult of youth. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Store Concepts for Teens. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Smart Teens. [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Ignition 2013: engaging the connected consumer [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Re-work technology summit [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. US teens & Social Media [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Anywhere retailing [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2011. Chain reactions: Speed thrills [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2011. Frontline: Open Communications [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Retail in virtual gaming [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. Stylus, 2013. Future Innovations [online]. Available via: Stylus [Accessed: 5 December 2013]. WGSN, 2013. Generation Tech: Gen Z, pluralists [online]. Available via: WGSN [Accessed 13 October 2013].

Part 7 | Appendix

Part 8 Appendix

Generation I

.................... Declaration form .................... Tutorial record sheets .................... Critical Path .................... Project information .................... Online questionnaire .................... Interviews .................... Focus group .................... Ethnographical research .................... Digital diaries .................... Forum questions .................... Ethical consent forms .................... Event notes .................... Visual inspiration .................... Case studies

Appendix 1 - Declaration form

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 2 - Tutorial record sheets

TUTORIAL RECORD

Generation I

TUTORIAL RECORD

Part 7 | Appendix

TUTORIAL RECORD

Generation I

TUTORIAL RECORD

Part 7 | Appendix

TUTORIAL RECORD

Generation I

TUTORIAL RECORD

Part 7 | Appendix

FEEDBACK FROM SESSIONS

Generation I

FEEDBACK FROM SESSIONS

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 3 - Critical path

Created to assist with time management

Generation I

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 4 - Project information

Generation I

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 5 - online survey ‘Parent’s take on their children’s technology consumption’ How long do your children (per child) spend on technology items per day? 0 hours 0 Up to 1 hour

1-2 hours

2-3 hours

3-4 hours

4-5 hours

5-6 hours

6+ hours

What Products do they interact with? (please select as many as applicable) Ipad 30 Other form of tablet

Iphone 15 Other form of phone

Ipod touch 24 TV 29 Hand-held games console

Games console on the TV

Laptop 28 Desktop computer 2

If your child/children do use technology have you found that it has changed their behavior in anyway? eg. Helped them learn certain new skills/ created a short attention span? *Helped with spellings and maths. But mainly used for pleasure. *They seem to love playing on technology and want to do it more than anything else so I’d say it has changed

their behavior in the way that they have become obsessed

*They are skilled at typing and formatting documents and using different computer programs. However, they do not

read books as often as they used to.

Generation I

*Helped them develop technology expertise and a means of socialising through Skype and Facetime whilst gaming. I often find myself asking them for help when it comes to technology as amazingly they know more than me. *I think after a prolonged period playing games they become tetchy and unreasonable. *Helped them to be more independent and work things out for themselves, at a much quicker rate than I did *My little one seems only interested in the tactile elements of the ipad at the moment and she doesn’t seem to want to interact with her other toys at all, its fascinating to watch. Then toby just seems a lot more creative and excited by technology, he designs fabulous worlds on minecraft and sims. *A lot more knowledgable from going on all sorts of different websites. It amazes me what they come out with sometime *I think emily (aged 26 months) is growing up different and a lot more advanced to her older siblings. With the help of the Cbeebies website she has really started to engage with technology and understands how to switch things on and off and work the iPad. She also loves seeing herself in the screen, there is a game on Cbeebies website which switches the webcam on at certain points during the game so it looks like she is inside the game. This has really helped her to create shapes and use her hands to make things happen. *They have a much shorter attention span because they are working so many gadgets! *He is very imaginative from all the different games he plays *I find that sometimes its hard to get Sophie to stop playing on the laptop and if you try and talk to her whilst she’s on it she wont listen to you. Having said that it has helped her with her spellings *My youngest boy is a lot more harder to please when it comes to presents etc than my older one ever was because he studies it all online and knows everything about anything. I would say he is a lot more informed/picky *Not as excited by outdoor activities *No i don’t think so, we limit the children’s time on devices so try to keep a healthy balance. *Obsessed with Snapchat on my phone! *Too dependent on her iPod *Helped out with school work by making it fun and something she wants to do *A lot more independent and helps with his writing as he has started a blog *Obviously noticed a shift from playing with toys that i grew up with such as barbie to now a vast variety of digital games *I feel that they are too intensely engaged sometimes *Its made my children a lot more confident about their ideas as we use alot of educational apps *Charlie has got a more just do it attitude and we let him do what he wants on his games console because I find it makes him more proactive *Helped her learning develop *I think too much time interacting with devices can cause aggravation within my kids so try to limit the time they spend on them *It has developed my sons social skills even if it is through gaming *A lot more intuitive, they are constantly gathering a wide range of information from all different sources on the web for their homework *Sometimes I feel it makes her lazy and groggy *Harder to make excited without tech! *Very skilled at using all our gadgets and have learnt it at a scary pace

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 6 - email interviews with industry professionals

6.1 Kathryn Mills - Professor of Cognitive Neuroscience at UCL.‘Current research examines structural and functional changes in regions of the social brain across adolescence.’ 29/10/13

Sophie Marjoram: Q. Do you think it is true that the internet and being always connected to the online is changing the way in which children and adolescents are growing up and the social skills they hold? Kathryn Mills: A. Growing up with the ability to connect with the world’s information and vast numbers of other humans is definitely changing the way in which children and adolescents navigate the world. But I think this is just like how any widespread technology changes how one grows up. Books, telephones--these are also technologies that impacted on the development of previous generations (as they continue to do on the current generation). Navigating the online world requires social skills, and children and adolescents are well-poised to learn these skills because of how important it is to be a successful social navigator. So yes, there are new skills that are being learned by generations that connect to each other online. Sophie Marjoram: Q. Do you think that it will be relevant to communicate to these consumers in new digital ways in order to engage them? (For example in an in-store environment, is it no longer enough to reach out to them through social and offline interactions, do we need to access them through their mobiles and technology) Kathryn Mills: A. Definitely. But existing methods are not totally obsolete. Also, I think widespread access to information will make the younger generations more informed in their consuming choices. Sophie Marjoram: Q. Do you think that instead of adapting the way in which we communicate to them, the way in which they use the internet should be monitored and changed? Or should we embrace this networked culture and adapt accordingly to it? Kathryn Mills: A. I think any efforts to censor or change the way younger generations are using the internet will not be successful. I think it would be better to adapt to these technologies as one method of communicating to younger generations. There is quite a bit of variability amongst people, and having a multi-faceted communication approach will likely have more impact. Sophie Marjoram: Its really interesting to hear your opinion about how you don’t think it would be successful to change or sensor the way in which younger generations interact with the Internet. As my whole idea stems around creating new brand communication strategies to cater towards the digital minded; I was worried that it wouldn’t be a very ethical approach and that I shouldn’t be encouraging the younger consumers to continue with there internet obsession, due to as you commented in your presentation it is changing the adolescent brain. However like you say navigating the online world does require other social skills, so it is not completely creating generations with a loss of social skills!

Generation I

Kathryn Mills: Thank you for the feedback! I guess I feel that I don’t think it would be successful to limit use of technology--it would be kind of like preventing previous generations from reading books (e.g., censoring books, book burnings). People always figure out a way around it, and then later generations look back and think how silly it was to have tried to censor people’s access to information. I didn’t talk about “internet addiction” in my talk, because it’s a controversial disorder. On the whole, only about 4% of young people display problematic internet use, so that means that many young people are not negatively affected by internet use. While I do think internet use affects the adolescent brain, I mean that it affects the adolescent brain because everything we encounter affects our brains. I don’t think internet use is changing anything major in the adolescent brain--at least there is no scientific evidence for this at present. I understand where you’re coming from about not wanting to encourage further internet obsession with your new communication strategy. I read a great interview with Tavi Gevinson the other day where she talks about how the format of her website rookiemag.com only updates 3 times a school day because she didn’t want people always online checking for updates. Here’s the quote from the interview: “A lot of Rookie is about using the online to get people to do things offline. We only have three posts a day, which for a lot of other websites is a low number. But I feel like I don’t want teenagers sitting at their computer all day, you know? We have a lot of content about DIY, you know, starting a band, things to do on your own that are outside of just reading our website. I think having book, something that you can read in bed, that was important to me.” Maybe your brand communication strategy can use the internet but still encourage offline life?

Part 7 | Appendix

6.2 Liam Berriman - Research Assistant at The Centre for Innovation and Research in Childhood and Youth.

16/12/13 Sophie Marjoram Q. From reading about the Face 2 Face project you are working on it seems that you are exploring the differences between face-to-face and online interactions between children, why do you feel that this is relevant? Liam Berriman A: One of the main aims of the study for us is to re-think how you study children’s everyday lives at a moment where digital technologies are increasingly being used as a means of mediating contact with peers and family and sharing images, messages and data. That’s not to say, however, that digital and online technologies are present in all parts of children’s lives. In that respect, we’re also interested in how being ‘offline’ or ‘face to face’ are emerging as distinctive parts of children’s daily lives. So for our study, it’s about understanding the temporal rhythms of children’s everyday lives, and exploring the movement between ‘mediated’ and ‘face to face’ contact within those daily lives. Sophie Marjoram Q. Also, you have previously looked into at virtual worlds specifically created for young people. Did you find that being so immersed in these worlds had specific effects on the younger generations? Liam Berriman A: I’m always cautious about using the term ‘effect’ as it implies a degree of technological determinism (that the technology changes/re-shapes us). Having said that, I do think that the growth of the virtual world market has been significant in changing how young people are positioned as ‘consumers’ within our society. A significant part of my research was on the ways in which designers and companies attempt to incorporate users into the design process. Thanks to social media services (such as Twitter), and even the virtual worlds themselves, teams of designers can now talk to, observe and interact with their users whilst they’re using the products. For example, a designer might go ‘in game’ to meet users and see what they’re doing, which might lead to a new design idea. Then as that new feature is being built, the designer can continue to get user feedback throughout the design process. In this way, young people are increasingly being positioned as important not only at the point of use or consumption, but also in the process of design and production. There are, however, lots of issues in terms of how ‘equal’ this process is. Sophie Marjoram Q. Do you think it is true that the internet and being always connected to the online world is changing the way in which children and adolescents are growing up and the social skills they hold? Liam Berriman A: I’m not sure how qualified I am to answer whether it is changing how they are ‘growing up’ (maybe this is something we won’t know for awhile yet?) But certainly in terms of social skills there are new forms of etiquette that have to be learnt. How young people learn to interact with their peers is subject to complex ‘unwritten’ rules - some of which vary from playground to playground. A large part of this is learning how to avoid or negotiate ‘awkward’ situations, for example, whether to break up with someone face to face or via a text message! Sophie Marjoram Q. Do you think that it will be relevant to communicate to these consumers in new digital ways in order to engage them? (For example in an in-store environment, is it no longer enough to reach out to them through social and offline interactions, do we need to access them through their mobiles and technology.) Liam Berriman A: I think that a lot of brands are already doing this via social media - such as ‘liking’ or ‘following’ particular products or brands online, sharing ‘viral’ adverts, engaging in ‘immersive’ advertisements (e.g. such as through apps or virtual worlds). Some people have suggested that the shopping centre has declined as a social space for young people to ‘hang out’ and that online spaces are the new ‘malls’. I’m not sure if I agree with this. I think that ‘meeting in town’ or going shopping/eating out in town are still a significant part of young people’s lives, though often planned and negotiated via social media devices. Essentially, I think it’s probably going to be a bit of both!

Generation I

Appendix 7 - email interview with blogger/businessman 7.1 Four Little Testers - ‘IT Geek dad and his four children, helping indie iPhone/iPad #kidsapp developers with quality testing and constructive feedback.’ 18/11/12 Sophie Marjoram Q: How did the idea for four little testers come about? Andy Battle A: I’m an IT professional, so we have had an iPad since they first came out (late 2010). The choice and types of apps was very limited at the start, but over the first year, as a parent I had bought and played so many games, educational and storybook apps. And as a parent I felt the need to provide feedback to the developers where there were issues relating to usability and functionality. Twitter seemed to be the best platform to engage and contact the various developers. Over the years I started helping smaller independent developers with beta and pre-release testing. In most parts a lot of indie developers do not have professional testers, they just use their kids or friends. In mid 2012 I decided to start a dedicated Twitter account (@4littletesters) and start publishing a blog, so I had to think up a name, and #fourlittletesters seemed to be a good fit. Most app developers wanted me to share my reviews, and their promotions, so eventually I started a Facebook page too, Sophie Marjoram Q: Why do you think app developers view your children as such a valid critiques? (I know its obviously because they are making products aimed at them but do you think that they understand the younger generations have such a different mindset when it comes to technology nowadays?) Andy Battle A: Often developers don’t have kids, and they develop apps that they think kids will like, and the get their friends to test and play with them, so the feedback they get is generally good. What I have found is that the navigation and usability of the apps is the number one thing that you can’t get wrong, but developers often fail in the area of ‘making things child friendly’. I write it how I see it, which is normally the biggest benefit of our service, if the kids can’t use it, work it or just don’t like it, I share this. One of the things that developers also like is that the children each rate the apps, and I ask what they did and didn’t like about the app, and I also them how they would improve the app. The thoughts and opinions for the testers is very valuable to the developers, and they very often get some great ideas from the kids. Sophie Marjoram Q: Do you find that your little testers have completely different views / engage differently with the apps to how you do? Andy Battle A: All of the testers are different, and some apps can create a level of stress and anxious in the younger ones, that is not experienced by the older ones, they definitely like different aspects of the apps, and they always like different characters, games and levels from each other. Story books are definitely one area where they relate to the different ages at the different levels, reading, writing, music & play. Sophie Marjoram Q: Do you see your little testers as being very interactive and can you see this being applied to other walks of their life such as hobbies, school work, socialising etc? Andy Battle A: The testing certainly helps them to articulate things better and form an opinion, I don’t think that they socialise better, but they certainly interact and bond with their siblings during the process. Many of the apps require role play and imagination, and some get the child involved in story writing and animation, these combined definitely help the pre-schoolers. I have found that this has made the children a lot more creatively minded, and maybe a bit more hard to please? Because they are interacting in these highly whimsical worlds nothing mundane is exciting to them.

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 8 - focus group with 4 children under 11 years old. Below shows key information taken from a focus group conducted. I have not included the whole scribe as many parts aren’t relevant as it was mostly candidates talking about off subject topics. Whats your favourite play activity when your with your friends? Matt 9yrs: Football! Sarah 8yrs: Hmm, stuck in the mud is what we always play in the playground. I think thats my favourite because i’m always really fast and can dodge under my friends arms. Sometimes in the playground we just talk and sit on the benches and all the boys always try and disturb us. Edward 9yrs: When i’m at Mikes were allowed to play on his playstation for at least an hour or more which is really fun. We play Lego Marvel SuperHeroes and see who wins. Joe 10yrs: Probably X-box because we can fight with each other but if were at school football or bull dogs charge Whats your favourite activity when your playing alone? Matt 9yrs: Computer games because I’m bored when I’m on my own so I need to do something fun. Sarah 8yrs: The Computer is definitely my favourite because I can go on CBBC - I like the songs and games and theres a dance off game I like. Edward 9yrs: TV because when I’m on my own I can watch what i want and when Els here I have to watch girl programs. Joe 10yrs: I still like going on the X-box when I’m playing on my own. The computer and CBBC is boring, its babyish What is your favourite item of technology? Matt 9yrs: The computer is my favourite. I like the Moshi Monsters game - theres loads of stuff to do but also you can message people and stuff. I’m only friends with people I know on it. I like GI joe, the army game. Sarah 8yrs: I like the computer, you can use it for games and going on websites or emailing people. I’m not allowed to use it all the time because Mum and Dad have to do work and things. Lucy has a mobile phone but your not allowed it at school and I think 8 is too young to have a mobile phone. I think she’s abit more posh. Edward 9yrs: iPhone is my favourite. Its so cool to play games on it, my favourite is crazy penguin catapult I’m really good at it. I’m better than my sister. She’s 12. I wanted a playstation like Mike at one point but the I thought we have to many things with my DS and Wii. Joe 10yrs: Definitely the X-box. Its so cool to play loads of games on it How much time are you allowed to spend using technology a day? Matt 9yrs: Im allowed on the computer 4pm-6pm but i’d rather play football. Sarah 8yrs: I’m allowed on for a while but then Mum and Dad have to do work so I can’t go on it anymore. Edward 9yrs: Probably an hour. Joe 10 yrs: I’m allowed on it for as long as I want, probably because I’m the oldest here

Generation I

Appendix 9 - Ethnographical research with four children under 11 years old.

9.1 Ella and Jacob Rees aged 10 and 7years old - key information only included, as at some points the participants went off topic Jacob talking about multiple touchscreens Jacob: My mum says that if you are playing a rope game and you are climbing something you can do that Sophie: Oh cool, so that whole bit at the back is another touch screen part? Jacob: Yeah its kinda like a wii so its easier to use Sophie: So what do you play on your ps vita? Jacob: You can get any good game because you just download it Ella talking about minecraft Ella: Because you can build worlds and make machines that like do stuff Sophie: Ah cool, so why do you like playing on things like this? Ella: You can do whatever you want so sometimes when I feel abit imaginative or have a good idea, I come on this and it lets me do what ever i want and create something that I can’t do in the real world Sophie: Thats really interesting! Ella: And mummy said its also educational aswell because youve got like red stone and it teaches you how to wire up stuff, oo and you can make rollercoasters Sophie: So have you downloaded this program onto this laptop? Ella: Yes it costs £18 and I did it all by myself but obviously mummy paid Jacob: You can different types Ella: No you can’t thats just the MODs Jacob: You can get different types for the xbox. The xbox one has got different things to the computer and everyone says that its the best Ella: The PC version or the xbox? (became very hard to gain proper answers from Ella as she got so involved within her game) Jacob: Yeah the PC Sophie: Your very quick on it! Ella: Yes. When I first started I was very slow but i learnt quickly because I watched some people on it Sophie: So how long ago did you start using this? Can you remember? Ella: Not really, it was this year

Sophie: How often do you go on it? Ella: Lots! Probably everyday Sophie: Do you ever play the game together? Ella: No Jacob: No you can’t, its a one person game. You need it on another device Ella: You could play together and share but its better on your own. This is the world that I’ve started building with all these columns, do you want me to get you a clearer picture? Sophie: So you’ve made all this? Ella: Yeah Sophie: Thats so cool ella! Ella: You know this here, I didn’t build this. When you make a new world this automatically comes on, on this kind of worlds but there is loads of different worlds. Sophie: This looks really complicated Ella: Its not if you think about it Ella: Oo and theres also survival where you’ve got too, it gives you 8 lives and you chop down trees and stuff. And theres also loads of types of different worlds like the water world Sophie: Which one is your favourite world? Ella: My Favourite is erm, the classic flat. Sophie: Whys that? Ella: Its just totally flat so you dont have to get rid of anything so you can build things really easy Mobile Phones Ella: I’ve got a thirty quid phone Jacob: I’ve got an ipod touch Sophie: Do you ever use your phone Ella? Ella: Yeah sometimes when I’m here I text my daddy Jacob: Not much Ella Ella: Well sometimes I do it in secret Jacob so you cant really say anything about it Sophie: When are you allowed a phone jacob? Ella: When he’s 9 Jacob: Yeah so next year Sophie: Do alot of your friends have phones? Ella + Jacob: Yeah

Part 7 | Appendix

9.1 Ella and Jacob Rees trashpack and a computer to play on. Ella: We want more skylanders too, they’re like our Is Tech better? faaavourite game but Jacob always uses my characters Jacob: I just think that just playing with toys is so I want new ones. boring and playing with technology is better for your Jacob: I want an xbox 360 with fifa 14 and a macbook education like you can learn more like how to use air. Cos theres an ipad air and I want a thin macbook more things because everyone knows theres more pro. electronic stuff than just toys Ella: Mummy will not buy you an ipad Sophie: Ah thats interesting, Ella why do you like Jacob: I don’t want an ipad them both the same? Ella: Because your going to get one when you go into Ella: Because if you dedicate your whole life to year 7 and I will too. When you go to IGS they give technology then you won’t talk to anyone and it’ll just you an ipad to do all your homework on. be like. And I find that when i spend to much time on Jacob: And you can download games, as long as you a computer or anything like that I feel really sick and don’t play on them during lessons. things Ella: They’ve all got tracking devices on them. The Sophie: Do you? teachers can track you wherever you go Ella: Yeah sometimes when I’ve been on it too long. Jacob: Look at these photos of Ella I also just like crafting aswell and just a tiny bit like Ella: Theres this thing called facewarp and we always minecraft I can do whatever I wan. Sometimes even take selfies on it but really silly ones though I’m 10 i do like little imaginary games and I like to colour Sophie: Ella, do you prefer your kindle fire to reading Jacob: Anyone can do what they want in their lives so books? you can still do kids stuff like craft Ella: Yes, I really like how I can swipe over the screen to turn the page and I can download any book I want. The Internet But i bet in the future books will be completely wiped Sophie: Do you use the internet? out because of technology but I like books because I Ella: Oo I love youtube like the retention of turning a page to see the writing Jacob: Yeah I mostly go on youtube thats all on the next page Sophie: Do you go on anything else? Ella: Did you know you can actually fly? Theres this Jacob: epic video on youtube of someone flying and he’s Ella: I look on rightmove because were probably going got these massive amazing wings and I want to do it to get a dog next year and we need a house to have a because I know its real because I’ve seen someone do dog it on youtube What do you want for christmas? Ella: A new type of furby, its like an electronic animal and its got lots of different personalities and it moves and stuff. And when you play music it dances and stuff because it is alert to what your doing and it knows you. Its called interactive one. It can hear you and it has its own language so you can talk to it in this other language and it will respond. I also want a collect 90

Generation I

What digital devices do you own? Ella: Kindle Fire, iPod touch, mobile phone, Furby interactive Jacob: PS Vita, iPod touch, X-box, Wii (average of 4 portable devices)

9.1 Ella and Jacob Rees - own photos taken during ethnographical research

Part 7 | Appendix

9.2 Archie Grayham aged 9 years old - key information only included, as at some points the participants went off topic

What digital devices do you own? iPod iPad Wii Kindle Mobile Phones Archie: This is my dads iPhone. Its an iPhone 5, so not the most recent iPhone. Its old now! He needs an upgrade. Iv’e told him to get the iPhone 5c cos thats the newest one and its really cool cos you can pick whatever colour you want. I want him to get the blue one. Sophie: Do you have a phone Archie? Archie: No. But I use my dads a lot and I know how to use it and everything. But I wouldn’t want an old one like this, I would want a new one. Like a proper upgrade of this. Sophie: Ah ok, so the 5c? Archie: Yeah! One boy in my class has it so I always get to play on it. Sophie: Does he bring it to school? Archie: Yeah so at playtime we go on it, we have to keep it a secret though. Is Tech better? Archie: Erm I don’t know! Sophie: Do you prefer playing with your friends or your wii or iPad etc. Archie: I don’t know! I like them both I think. They’re both fun in different ways What do you want for christmas? X-box 360 Detective kit

Generation I

Archie: This is my favourite game that I always go on, its called Minecraft. You’ve basically just got to blow up mines, so that you have land to build on and own. And there’s loads of different worlds so you will never run out of what to do because you can just go into another world. (Archie soon became so involved in playing Minecraft and looking up YouTube tutorials of what to do, I could no longer get him to answer any more questions. However it was interesting to watch his ability to work round problems he was facing in minecraft. If he didn’t know what to do, he would find youtube tutorials or just work around it and use trial and error.)

9.2 Archie Grayham - own photos taken during ethnographical research

Part 7 | Appendix

9.3 Daniel Deacan aged 11 years old - key information only included as at some points the participants went off topic

Daniel on Skylanders Daniel: Skylanders is my favourite game because you can literally make your character in real life and make it have good fighting techniques. Sophie: Ah, cool show me how it works Daniel: Well if I put these legs on this body then that means that he will be fast at running, but then if i put these legs on him it means he won’t be fast but he will be able to kick people hard and knock them to the ground so it depends what you want really Sophie: Why do you like playing on this then? Why is it your favourite game? Daniel: Because I can make my own characters and its really cool to use them on the TV. (Amazing being shown how this game works because it literally unites the physical and digital worlds. Daniel can change and shape his characters in real life and then he puts them on a portal, and they appear on the TV screen ready for battle with characteristics that he has chosen) Daniel on his PS Vita Daniel: If I can’t sleep sometimes I go on my ps vita and look at youtube tutorials of how to do cool stuff Sophie: Ah so its connected to the internet? Daniel: Yeah Sophie: Are you allowed to go on that at night?! Daniel: No but no one knows because I keep it hidden! I play fifa at night on it too, its so fun I just want to always do it Mobile Phones Sophie: Do you have a mobile Daniel? Daniel: Yeah I do

Generation I

Is Tech better? Yeah its so cool. Its the funnest thing to do, play on my PS or the TV, I always get told off because I spend too long on it Sophie: Do you use the Internet? Daniel: Yeah I go on it alot on my mum or brothers iPhone to download apps or look at YouTube and then I have Facebook on my laptop. My favourite apps at the moment are Candy crush, Temple run, Stick man BMX and Stack the countries. My mum always says I’m really speedy on apps! Sophie: What do you use Facebook for?? Daniel: To talk to all my friends and swap games when we’re not at school. I upload pictures of me and my family too and people comment on them Sophie: Ah very nice! What do you want for christmas? I want my own laptop because my brother always says he has to go on our laptop because he’s older and has more important homework. I am getting more homework so i do probably need my own laptop What digital devices do you own? Laptop but I share that with my brother PS Vita Mobile phone Wii (Daniel was observed posting a picture of one of his Skylanders on Facebook and he waited for comments from his friends to see if they wanted to triad his toy with one of theirs. It was amazing how quickly the comments came in and how much Daniel cared about them - one boy said it was a rubbish model so no one would want to swap it - which really annoyed Daniel)

9.3 Daniel Deacan - own photos taken during ethnographical research (didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t want his picture taken)

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 10 - Digital diaries collected from previous respondants

Jacob digital diary

6 hrs 30 game play on digital devices

Generation I

Ella digital diary

16 hrs 30 game play on digital devices

Part 7 | Appendix

Archie digital diary

Generation I

7 hrs game play on digital devices (only allowed on devices for 1 hour per day)

Appendix 11 - Digital vs Physical Toy Tally Data collected from the three previous households, counting what the ratio of physical to digital toys were in their front rooms.

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 12 - Questions posted on popular parenting forums

12.1 Mumsnet

100

Generation I

12.2 Quib.ly

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 13 - Ethical consent forms Kathryn Mills consent to appendix 6.1

Andy Battle consent to appendix 7.1

102

Generation I

Liam Berriman consent to appendix 6.2

Part 7 | Appendix

Rachel Rees consent to appendix 9.1

104

Generation I

Susie Grayham consent to appendix 9.2

Part 7 | Appendix

Nicola Deacan consent to appendix 9.3

106

Generation I

Ethical consent to appendix 5

The following paragraph was put at the top of the questionnaire before respondents answered. For my final year university project at Nottingham Trent University, I am researching into children’s technology consumption and would appreciate it if you could fill out this short survey below on your childs/ children’s technology usage. The aim of this research project is ‘To find out what strategies brands need to adopt in order to interact most efficiently with Generation Interactive once they become primary consumers’. It entails me researching into Generation Interactive and how they are a completely different generation to any we have experienced before due to growing up immersed in a digital world. I am being supervised by University lecturers throughout this report. This survey will be printed in the appendix of my report and analysed within the main body, your answers can be withdrawn at any time and you do not have to give any reasons for withdrawing, as your participation is completely voluntary. The report will be used as part of university assessed work and that it will be read by tutors and made available to an external examiner.

Part 7 | Appendix

Kath Tenchan consent to appendix 8

108

Generation I

Helen rice-burchall consent to appendix 8

Part 7 | Appendix

Sarah Cripps consent to appendix 8

110

Generation I

Jo Taylor consent to appendix 8

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 14 - LS:N Global Notes Children under 10 – viewing the whole world in a different manner Thinking about the unthinkable Dreamtelligence – Counter Intuitive Thinking Turbulent Teens: Uncertainty as opportunity The anarconomy decade: disruptive solutions. If your ship is about to sink, you risk everything…. People perform irrationally Why are people spending more? Spending more time in pubs, going out more… It’s because the world is going to end Personal Information Economy: Data re-evaluation Why should we not profit from people using our data? Social media updates Every time you like something, you might get a voucher – get something Generation D: Collaborative thinking, born with no memory of a world without a mobile phone/fax machine/telephoneboxes Their older customers will be dead You HAVE to think about younger people Science as a driving force Technology as an enabler Teens 8 20 something are driving through new attitudes Showrooming – where you go into store, check out stuff… and buy it somewhere else! Gated retail Phy-digital: blurring technology which physical space. Retail is now a third space BFD: Big friendly data: turning data into something beautiful. Shows you life in pictures Sharenting: Parents (in their 30s) putting pictures of children. They really want to see their child growing up…. Making kids into celebrities Bio Facture: New method of production bio engineering Silent room in selfridges, you no longer need to go to the shop to buy. It’s all about experiences! Consumer attitudes Prohibition culture Are people drinking too much/ driving too fast?

112

Generation I

We’re becoming more judgemental Dawn of the mega systems: Which company would you trust? 50% amazon 36% google 31% facebook (is more influential then the government!) 31% google Generation I (under 11) 73% of generation I children influence their parents purchases Knowledge used to be handed down: now children are giving their parents knowledge How sustainable/eco friendly you should be as a family 62% of parents actually seek advice for purchases Parent – Child relationship: collaborative not authoritive Re enlightenment Rising Science, art, technology, culture blurring – 75% believe 94% believe science can improve the world we live in 88% believe science can improve society Young people are willing to sacrifice peoples liberty to make sure they don’t damage their health Becoming more conservative As life becomes more digital we are fuelling the rise When was the last time you walked out to buy a dvd? Companies selling weightless products alongside solid ones now dominate Convenience culture We buy media in seconds Google maps in shops Twitter: What you sell to twitter is your updates, they’re using our effort By 2020 there will be 50billion connected devices Lifeblog clip on camera: automatically uploads to social network Entering a world where everything is recorded Facebook Graph Search, Google Local You can predict what is happening in their lives

Trend Impacts Showrooming: People still like to visit stores but they want to search online for the best deal Anti-Amazonians: In protest against amazons app. Gated Retail: Offering benefits, launching things on facebook – just for facebook. Walled rewards: Asos offered facebook fans an exclusive sale that resulted in a 67% increase In system privilege Trend Consequences Retailers fighting back Shoprunner: Allows you to offer something amazon give you Price match |Free shipping | Free reports Offline retail: important for consumer experience Pop up stores Google planning stand alone stores Online brands coming offline #etsy retail spaces in Brooklyn If I can buy stuff online, why would I go to the store? Google.com/+topshop –be the buyer app, topshop want you to be the buying team Phy-gital Law of digital realm into physical world New McQueen space: lets clients choose looks on a screen topped table and allows them to view them on the catwalk – dover st London Amo Eno wine bar – hongkong Basecamp, berlin – screens that stream tweets, local people tweet things Lane Crawford, nick knight – customers can edit the video Mega-System Style MoMA – Meta haven Web becoming like a natural resource Fach and Asendorf Gallery, Berlin Google self drive cars Branded lives

Through the internet of things Mega systems will further penetrate our lives Nokia started of as a forest company Samsung used to create rice Swarovski made guns These companies can push out Whole person profiles Predictive retail – Predicting you are going to do certain things Searchable world Everything we see/every conversation we have will be recorded Google Glass DVF through glass (Diana von F) Align your brand with the values and styles of megasystems Limited editions are back – exclusivity are back Piggy back onto megasystems Easy to understand pictures then numbers Digital – physical spaces Integrate mega system aesthetic into your graphics and retail design Consider creating apps Design your product to connect with mega systems. Understanding the smart phone as a mobile wallet- 4g

Part 7 | Appendix

Strange Days: Generation Intuitive (Under 10s) Generation Intuitive: are teaching their older brothers and sisters! Generation D: Would remember the fax machine

Jonathon Buchanon Kids deal with things, they aren’t overwhelmed CTOs – Child Technology Officers

How to thrive in a digital age – Tom Chatfield

Trend Impacts:

Generation I, see technology as oxygen Immediate| Interactive | Immersive | Intuitive

Coder Culture: They want the web to cater for their every needs

Interaction – Collaboration Nobody reads manuals

Children are now demanding the ability to create and write their own programmes, not just consumer them.

Firewall Aaron Sherwood, Control more wealth then their predecessors. Aged 3 – 16 have $1,200 worth of toys Only 1% parents say their children save… Parents will keep providing

Tigerleap foundation

Parents share more of their own and their children’s lives then ever. 77% of UK mums and dads upload pictures of their children to social networks Mums: 30% sharenting Grow up self aware – Image conscious So transfixed on his own image A lot of people believe photography captures their souls. You’re going to have a different way to marketing Generation D (1994-2002) Multi-screen Expect everything to be interactive and shareable Illumiroom by Microsoft

Post email world Email – parents – text Ichat – generation D – chat Post icons – Generation I – visual Tagtool app. Animated art No linear media Dreamtelligence The gap between desire and reality is beginning to close further and further Infinity by Disney Natural born hackers Everything should be hackable They are the first to have the skills to modify and hack things Expert Tomorrow store today

Generation I – Children don’t know about the digital teething problems of the past

This group – Experience Geek express, Beirut – Forum

Sugata Mitra

Apple store, NY – Highest gross store in NY

We don’t have to short term memory things anymore – we can use our phones

Add value – experience – uniqueness

Digital Divide | Digital Natives | Digerati Technology – oxygen, without it they cannot breathe

114

Generation I

The Royal London hospitals play area – Interactive woodland, encourages them to play/do things

Trend Consequences Previous generations grew up with clear distinctions between toys for boys and girls Rise of coder culture, undermining stereotyped gender roles Barbie has launched a building site – encourages generation I girls away from dolls towards construction Screen-Agers Screens were things we watched Now screens have evolved into an interface between child and machine Disney’s revel system Papertab – a screen that can bend and flex Re-sensitized youth A pep talk from kid president to you Good at distinguishing between what is real and what is not online They are not upset by film or video game gore but have a higher level of empathy towards the suffering of others People believed if you spread knowledge to normal people they would abuse it. Hence books were only available in libraries Interactive art Trend Futures Ubiquitous retail They know any items they want is a tap away Computer – mediated conversation New versions of computers will pick up as we talk Physical avatars Tool Kit: Play to generation I- sense of image Target CTOs Let them code Be non linear

Let them hack Be a post stereotype brand Be a re:sensitized brand

Part 7 | Appendix

Appendix 15 - Visual inspiration for the design of my document

116

Generation I

Part 7 | Appendix

118

Generation I

Appendix 16 - Case studys 16.1 This is an exert from a blog called â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Babitechâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; where a mother is tracking her babies development with how she interacts with technology devices. Here she was seen swiping a laptop screen as she thought it was touchscreen.

Figure 53 - Rees, A., 2013. Baby touching laptop screen. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://babitech.wordpress. com[Accessed 10 October 2014]

Part 7 | Appendix

16.2 Kate Spade Saturday Store has teamed up with

eBay to create an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;open all hoursâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; window shop. Even after closing time users can browse through collections on a huge screen embedded into the window. When they have found an item they like they can have it delivered to any place at any time.

Figure 54 - Free, Z., 2013. Kate Spade saturday window shop. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://prexamples. com/2013/07/24-hour-window-shopping-kate-spade-launches-new-saturday-collection/ [Accessed 19 January 2014]

120

Generation I

16.3 Firewall Interactive works like a big stretchy touch screen, when people push on the fabric they send fire-like visual ripples across the screen and has the power to change both tempo and tone of music being played. Its a very expressive touch screen device.

Figure 55 - Starr, B., 2013. Firewall Interactive. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www.visualnews.com/2013/01/15/ firewall-an-interactive-fabric-installation/ [Accessed 19 January 2014]

Part 7 | Appendix

16.4 Arasma phone app - is an augmented reality platform that gives users the opportunity to make there own still image come to life. It is a free app, which forms basic AR. - All the user has to do is take a photo of the image that you want to bring to life, and then take a video of what you want to appear when a phone is scanned over that image. - Companys such as the ministry of sound and magazines have already started using it.

Figure 56 - Ministry of sound., 2013. Future bass. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www.ministryofsound.com/lifestyle/ blog/1170/future-bass-aurasma-app/ [Accessed 19 January 2014]

Figure 57 - Shopping blog, 2013. Kate Spade saturday window shop. [Photograph]. [online] Available at: http://www.shoppingblog. com/aurasma-augmented-reality-app-lets-you-add-virtual-content-11220127 [Accessed 19 January 2014]

122

Generation I